PADMANABHAYYA ALIAS CHANNARAYA SAVANTHA Vs. REVATHIAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree in OS.No.5 of 1964 on the file of the Civil Judge, South Kanara. Padu Panambur is a village in the District of South Kanra. In that village there was a certain Dugganna Savantha governed by Aliyasanthana Law. He was installed in the year 1908 as the holder of a pattam known as 'Padu Panambur Pattam' in accordance with the customs governing the same. He died on 25-6 41. On 26-6-41, defendants 1 to 3 who were the sons of the said Dugganna Savantha and the present plaintiff 1 Revathiamma, were adopted by one Kempamma, sister of Dugganna Savantha.

(2.) On the same day, defendant 1 was installed as the holder of the pattern in accordance with the custom of the family. Defendant 1 has continued to be the holder of the pattern since then. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the daughters of plaintiff 1.

(3.) The above said Revathiamma plaintiff 1, and her two daughters, plaintiffs 2 and 3 have filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for a partition and separate possession of their half share in the properties described in schedules 'A' and 'B' attached to the plaint and also in the right of trusteeship in respect of certain properties belonging to a family trust viz. Sri Ananthanatha Devaru shown in plaint 'C' schedule and another family trust called Chandranatha Devaru shown in plaint 'D' schedule and for ether allied reliefs. The case of the plaintiffs is that the plaintiffs and defendants who are Jains belong to a Kutumba governed by Aliyasanthana Law and that the said Kutumba or family owns immoveable and movable properties described in plaint 'A' and 'B' schedules; they also own a 'pattam' called 'Savantige Pattam of Mulki Sheeme' (hereinafter referred to as the pattam) which entitled them to receive a political pension from Government; to the trusteeship of various temples in the Mulki Sheeme and to honour at marriages and such other customary occasions. Their further case is that the said pattam does not own any properties, but it is only an office of honour to which one of the members of the family is selected by the Magne Gurikars according to custom. It is admitted by the plaintiffs that defendant 1 is holding the pattam and by reason of his assumption of that office, he is called Chennaraya Savantha.