SIDRAMAPPA Vs. MAHADEVI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals arise out of a suit filed by the plaintiff Mahadevi against the defendant Sidramappa and Chandrashekhar, brothers of her husband for partition and separate possession of the joint family properties or in the alternative for maintenance at the rate of Rs.300 per month for 12 years prior to the suit and at the same rate in the future. The relevant facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals may be briefly stated as follows: Plaintiff's husband Shivasharnappa and the defendants are brothers.

(2.) Shivasharnappa died in June 1944 leaving behind the plaintiff and his brothers, the defendants. After his death the defendants maintained the plaintiff paying Rs.75 per month for about eighteen months. Thereafter it appears the plaintiff left the family house and went and settled at Bijapur. She filed a suit for partition of the family properties in the Court of the Civil Judge, Sholapur, in O.S.No.54 of 1948 claiming cherein one-third share. The trial Court dismissed the suit and on appeal by the plaintiff the High Court of Bombay permitted the plaintiff to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit if so advised. The plaintiff filed the present suit on 15-6-1959 in the first instance for partition claiming one-third share on the ground that there was an earlier partition between her husband and the defendants some time in the year 1942, but the properties had not been divided by metes and bounds. Later on she amended her plaint by adding one more prayer that in case she was not entitled to get one third share in the joint family properties, she may be given past and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.300 per month. The defendants resisted the claim of the plaintiff and inter alia they contended that there was no partition between them and their deceased brother Shivasharanappa as alleged by the plaintiff and that she was not entitled to one-third share in the joint family properties. However, they conceded the claim of the plaintiff for maintenance and said that they were willing to pay such maintenance consistent with the income from the family properties taking into consideration the status of the parties. They pleaded that the claim of the plaintiff for maintenance at the rate of Rs.300 per month was excessive. On these pleadings, number of issues were raised by the trial Court. The trial Court negatived the contention of the plaintiff that there was an earlier partition between Shivasharanappa and the defendants and came to the conclusion that Shivasharanappa died as a member of the joint family.

(3.) The trial Court further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to one-third share in the joint family properties, but accepted the case of the plaintiff that she was entitled to maintenance being a widow of a deceased coparcener. The trial Court awarded past maintenance at the rate of Rs.100 per month for 12 years prior to the suit and future maintenance at the rate of Rs.150 per month. Aggrieved by this decision, the plaintiff has filed RFA. 65 of 1967; defendant 1 has filed RFA.25 of 1966, and defendant 2 has filed RFA.33 of 1966. As all these appeals give rise to common questions of law and fact they are disposed of by this common judgment.