RAMANNA AND OTHERS Vs. CHANNAMMA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular first appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment dated 24.1.2007 passed in O.S. No. 143/2001 by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and CJM, Mandya, allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff and declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to ¼th share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff has filed the Cross -objections praying that she be allotted 1/2 share in the suit schedule properties instead of ¼th share as held by the trial Court. The parties are referred according to their ranking in the trial Court.

(2.) IT is the case of the plaintiff that Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda had a son by name Ramanna and daughter Channamma. Both Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda and his wife Chowdamma are dead leaving behind their son and daughter. All the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda. The plaintiff and defendants are enjoying the suit schedule properties jointly as joint family properties. There was no division of properties between the co -parceners during the life time of Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda even after the death of Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda, there was no division of properties. Earlier Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda was the manager of the joint Hindu family constituting of plaintiff and defendant after his death, the family properties is being managed by Ramanna who is the 1st defendant. The plaintiff along with dependants is in joint possession and enjoyment of all the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are joint and ancestral properties and are yielding very good income as they are irrigated land. The 1st defendant in order to defraud the plaintiff is not disclosing the income from joint family properties and also attempting to alienate the same without any family necessities. From the last six months, there is a misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant on verification of the revenue documents, the plaintiff came to know that katha of suit schedule Item -7 has been changed in favour of 2nd defendant, who is none -other than the wife of 1st defendant without consent of the plaintiff. The suit schedule Item -8 has been purchased out of joint family funds in the name of 2nd defendant and, therefore, that item is also joint family properties. The 1st and 2nd defendants are colluding and attempting to alienate the properties to defraud the plaintiff. During life time of father of plaintiff, the family was in possession and enjoyment of the gold jewels, i.e., one kasinasara, 3 rope chain, kappa, 4 rings and one bullok cart, bulloks, now the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same. After the death of father of plaintiff. In view of the hostile attitude of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff has demanded for partition and separate possession of her legitimate share in the suit schedule properties, during the month of April, 2001 number of panchayath held in this regard and 1st respondent has totally refused to give the share of plaintiff the 1st defendant is not a law abiding person and hence, the plaintiff has no other alternative except to approach this Court. Hence, the suit.

(3.) ON the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: (I) Do the plaintiff prove that all the suit schedule properties are the joint family ancestral properties and that she entitled for 1/4th share in all the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds? (II) Do the defendants prove that suit schedule items -9, 10, 12, 13 and 15 are the self acquired properties of 1st defendant and that suit schedule item Nos. 7 and 8 are the "Streedhana  properties of 2nd defendant? (III) To what relief the parties are entitled? (IV) What decree or order?