HANUMAPPA Vs. SAROJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court which has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs partly granting 1/4th share to each of the plaintiffs in suit item Nos. 1 to 6, 10, 12 to 16. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the plaint.

(2.) One Sri. Chavadi Venkatagiriyappa, was a permanent resident of Bantahalli, Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk. He was an agriculturist by profession. He owned and possessed the suit schedule properties which are 16 in numbers. Item Nos. 1 to 15 are all agricultural properties whereas item No. 16 is a house property. He died on 31.7.1989 leaving behind his four daughters and a widow. Plaintiffs 1 and 2, defendants 1 and 2 are his daughters and third defendant was his widow. The plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties after the death of Chavadi Venkatagiriyappa. All the four daughters are married. The fourth defendant is the husband of the second defendant. Fifth defendant is the son-in-law of the first defendant. After the death of Chavadi Venkatagiriyappa, plaintiffs 1 and 2, defendants 1 to 3 succeeded to the estate of the deceased Chavadi Venkatagiriyappa as Class-I heirs and they are entitled to 1/5th share each. The plaintiffs demanded a division in all the suit schedule properties. Defendants 1 to 3 evaded the partition. Therefore, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/5th share in all the suit schedule properties. It was their further case that the husbands of defendants 1 and 2 have manipulated the revenue records to deprive and defraud the plaintiffs of their legitimate rights in the joint family properties. The first defendant also made sham and colourable deeds in favour of the fifth defendant to defraud the plaintiffs of their share in the joint family properties. Therefore, 4th and 5th defendants were made parties to the suit. Subsequently, by way of an amendment, it was pleaded that the first defendant has sold out the suit items 7, 8 and 9 of the plaint schedule under a registered sale deed dated 30.6.1988 for Rs. 15,000/- in favour of her son-in-law 5th defendant. The said sale is illegal and liable to be, set aside as not binding on the plaintiffs. The first plaintiff has preferred an appeal challenging the mutation entries in favour of husbands of defendants 1 and 2. The said appeal is pending before the Assistant Commissioner. The plaintiffs are entitled to mesne profits. Therefore, they filed a suit for partition and separate possession. Subsequent to the filing of the suit, the 3rd defendant-widow died intestate. Therefore, the plaint was amended claiming 1/4th share in all the plaint schedule properties. They also sought for cancellation of sale deed dated 30.6.1988 executed in favour of the fifth defendant.

(3.) The plaintiffs have no objection to the dismissal of the suit in respect of suit item Nos. 7 to 9 and 11.