S.A. CHONDAWWA AND OTHERS Vs. SMT. NALLAMAKKADA LALITHA, D/O. SRI. N. POOVAIAH KAVADI VILLAGE AMMATHI, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are considered together since they are preferred against the same judgment and decree. The first of these appeals - RFA 272/2001 was filed by the defendants 1 to 4 and 8. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff was the daughter of one Shivachalinda Parvati @ Neelavva. The said Parvati had three daughters, namely defendants 5. 6 and 7 and a son arraigned as defendant no. 8. The original propositus was one S.B. Devaiah who had married one Ammavva. Devaiah and Ammavva had one son by name, S.D. Ayyappa who was married to the first defendant - Chondavva. They had three daughters, by name Susheela. C.A. Poovamma. and K.A. Champaka. These defendants, according to the appellants, constitute a Hindu joint family. The genealogical tree is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:

(2.) DEVAIAH was stated to be the karta of the family. The properties described in the schedules were claimed as joint family properties. Devaiah is said to have died somewhere in the year 1977 and thereafter the properties have devolved by succession upon his widow Ammavva, his son S.D. Ayyappa and his daughter Parvathi. The widow of Devaiah also having died, the properties devolved on Parvathi on the one hand and Ayyappa on the other and their respective branches. It is upon exchange of notices between the parties claiming shares in the suit properties, that the suit came to be instituted.

(3.) THE Counsel for the appellants in the first of these appeals, who now represents only defendants 2 and 8, since there was a change in Counsel and other appellants have not chosen to entrust the case to the present Counsel, the other appellants have gone unrepresented. In any event, the Counsel for the appellants would submit that the trial court having found items no. 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the A schedule as the self -acquitted property also ought to have held items no. 1 and 8 as the self -acquired property of the appellants' branch claiming under Ayyappa and in this regard, the appellants having produced voluminous documents such as sales -tax receipts and other documents to evidence independent businesses that were run by Ayyappa during his life time, such as, excise business liquor business and cardamom business, it is also not in dispute that the items of the B and C schedule properties were acquired along with the third -party business partners. The evidence on record was ignored by the trial court in conceding the claim of the appellants as to items no. 1 and 8 also being the self -acquired properties of Ayyappa and the trial court was therefore acting without any basis to hold that items no. 1 and 8 were the joint family properties. It is this primary contention on the basis of which the counsel would seek to sustain the appeal which is preferred on several grounds as well.