J. SHOBHA RANI W/O N. MARSHETTY D/O LATE M.H. JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN Vs. SMT. HUCHAMMA W/O LATE M.H. JAYAPRAKASH NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) is the plaintiff before the trial court and respondent (hereinafter referred to as defendant) is the sole defendant before the trial court. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession of plaintiffs half share in suit schedule properties described as hereunder: - 'A' SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Old No. 28, New No. 28/1 measuring 3 acres 10 guntas including karab thereon situated at Malathahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District, now coming within the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike limits, and bounded on : East by : Nagarabhavi Kere Angala West by : Government Gomal Land North by : Land held by Surappa South by : Government Gomal Land 'B' SCHEDULE PROPERTY All that piece and parcel of the land bearing Old No. 28, New No. 28/1 measuring 2 acres situated at Malathahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore District, now coming within the jurisdiction of Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike limits, bounded on : East by : Kere Angala West by : Sy. No. 19 held by Muniswamappa North by : Land held by Puttarudraiah South by : Land held by Muni Hanumaiah The averments of plaint in brief are stated thus: - The suit schedule': properties are the self -acquired properties of Late. M.H. Jayaprakash Narayan. The plaintiff is the daughter and defendant is the wife of Late. M.H. Jayaprakash Narayan who died intestate on 06.04.1995, leaving behind plaintiff and defendant as successors to the estate of Late. M.H. Jayaprakash Narayan including suit schedule properties. The plaintiff and defendant are in joint possession of suit schedule properties as absolute owners.

(2.) THERE is reference to acquisition of suit schedule properties by the State subsequent to denotification. The plaintiff has referred to various writ proceedings that were instituted after denotification of the aforestated lands. The plaintiff has referred to representations given by the defendant wherein, defendant has alleged that plaintiff is not her daughter, in fact, plaintiff is the daughter of younger brother of defendant namely Muniyappa. After denotification of suit schedule properties, the defendant had made a representation to the Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk to enter her name in revenue records in respect of suit schedule properties. The plaintiff has referred to proceedings in P & SC No. 10045/1997, wherein, defendant on her behalf and also as natural guardian of plaintiff had made an application to receive the fixed deposits held and left by Late M.H. Jayaprakash Narayan.

(3.) THE plaintiff reiterating plaint averments had filed applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC (IA. No. 1 and IA. No. 2), to restrain defendant from dispossessing plaintiff from suit schedule properties and also to restrain defendant from alienating suit schedule properties pending disposal of suit.