POOJAPPA Vs. ANNAPOORNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. The learned Counsel for the respondents remains absent. The plaintiff before the Trial Court died during the pendency of the proceedings and is now represented by his legal representatives, who are the appellants.

(2.) The first defendant had entered appearance and filed written statement, to contend that it was not correct to state that Chikkamuniyappa and defendants 2 and 3 constituted a joint family and that the suit property was joint family property. The property belonged to one Erappa, son of Chikkamuniyappa and it was not joint family property. It was jodi inam land and one Chikkamuniyappa had filed an application before the Additional Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bangalore, seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of 1 acre in Survey No. 173 and 1 acre in Survey No. 171 of Jodi Kempapura Village of Bangalore North Taluk. The Competent Authority considered the rival claims and granted occupancy rights in respect of the above in favour of Chikkamuniyappa. The claim in the plaint without reference to the land by its Survey Number is, therefore, Vague and mischievous.

(3.) On the basis of the said pleadings, the Court below had framed the following issues.-