MARITANGEVVA Vs. ANUSUYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) REGULAR First Appeal No.99/2001 is filed by the original 7th defendant in OS No. 129/1995 and REGULAR First Appeal No.963/2000 is filed by the defendants-1 to 6 in the said suit. The relationship between parties and their array before the Court below as per the genealogical tree furnished in the pleadings is as follows:

(2.) IT is the grievance of the appellant in Regular First Appeal No.99/ 2001 that she being one of the daughters of the propositor should have been granted a decree for 1/3rd share in all the suit schedule properties, more particularly when it has been established on record that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the joint family consisting of plaintiffs and defendants of which her husband was a member. The learned trial Judge while answering issue Nos.11 and 12 vide paragraph 24 has held that the appellant (7th defendant-Marintangavva) is entitled to 1/3 share in the suit schedule properties. However, in the operative portion of the judgment, the same is not reflected so also in the decree made by the Trial Court. Thus we find the Trial Court has committed an error apparent on the face of the record. The Trial Court has committed an error in not reflecting the entitlement of 7th defendant to 1/3rd share in suit schedule properties in the operative portion of the judgment and not drawing the decree in conformity with the judgment. Section 152 of the CPC provides for rectification of such mistakes at any point of time, either suo moto by the Court or at the instance of the parties. Though Section 152 provides for rectification of such mistakes, the 7th defendant not having resorted to this course having preferred this appeal and with the ambitious intention of augmenting her share further, we have examined the merits of this appeal. While 1/3rd share in terms of the judgment is the correct share to which the 7th defendant is entitled to, the further claim for augmenting her share by claiming a share in a share allotted to her father- in-law making a claim for 1/2 share is only an ambitious claim not tenable in law as the daughter-in-law in the family can claim only through her husband and not as a direct heir to her father-in-law. The appellant can not get any share from out of the properties allotted notionally to the share of a father-in-law who was no more.

(3.) THE Trial Court had framed issue Nos. 3 to 5 to answer these contentions.