RAMAKRISHNAPPA Vs. RUDRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the defendants' second appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, which has decreed the suit, of the plaintiffs' for partition and separate possession and for legitimate shave in the suit schedule property after setting aside the decree of the Trial Court, which has dismissed the suit.

(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to, as they are referred to in the plaint.

(3.) AFTER service of summons, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 filed a joint written statement. They did not dispute the relationship with the parties. They admitted the death of the plaintiffs father and mother. After denying all the allegations in the plaint, they specifically contended that the plaintiff was married during the lifetime of her father Kariyappa and Sanna Chikkappa. At that time, all of them were living together. Whatever there was due to plaintiff had been paid to her at the time of her marriage, i.e., gold ornaments like gold necklaces worth 50 grams, gold bendole worth 20 grams and two buffaloes worth Rs.6,000/-. Sometime after her marriage, she was allotted with three mango trees giving her the right to take and pluck mango fruits from the said trees. A black tiled roofed house was also given to her. This was for' her benefit. The plaintiff and her husband have been residing in Chitradurga City. Her husband is a Coconut Merchant. The plaintiff never lived after her marriage in Tegaranahatti Village. She has not cultivated the suit schedule lands at any material point of time.