VEERABHADRAPPA Vs. LINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is by the plaintiffs in Original Suit No. 57 of 1949-50 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mysore, who lost both in the suit as well as in R. A. No. 15 of 1953 presented by them to the Court of the District Judge of Mysore.

(2.) The Plaintiffs and the first fifteen defendants are members of a Hindu family governed by Mitakshara Law. The subject-matter of the suit was a partition effected under a registered document Ex. XII, dated the 20th of June, 1938, under which the family divided itself into five branches represented by five sons of the common ancestor of the family called Veerathiah. The said Veerathiah died in the year 1898 leaving behind him five sons, Appajappa, Lingappa, Chikkappaji, Huchappa and Puttegowda. The first among them Appajappa was the manager of the family from 1898 till he died in the year 1929. The said Appajappa's son Veerathiah is the eighth defendant in the suit. From 1929 till partition was effected, the second son Lingappa was the manager. He was the first defendant in the suit and the first respondent in the Second Appeal. He having died shortly after the presentation of the Second Appeal, his sons, Puttaswamy, Veerathiah and Puttanna, have been substituted in his place as legal representatives, as respondents I (a), I (b) and I (c) in the Second Appeal. The third son Chikkappaji's son Thammiah was the second defendant in the suit whose two sons and two daughters were the plaintiffs. The fourth son Huchappa's children were defendants 3 to 7. The youngest son Puttegowda had a son called Channaveerappa whose seven children were defendants 9 to 15 in the suit. The direct parties to the partition under Ex. XII were Veerathiah the eighth defendant, Lingappa the first defendant, Thammiah the second defendant, Huchappa the father of defendants 3 to 7 and Channaveerappa the father of defendants 9 to 15.

(3.) Defendants 16 to 20 are alienees of several items of property from the plaintiffs' father, the; second defendant. As Mr. Lakshminaranappa, the learned Counsel for the appellants, stated at the commencement of his arguments that he would not press the case of the plaintiffs in respect of the alienations made in favour of these defendants no further reference to these defendants or the alienations under which they claim, is called for.