CHENNAPPA MOOLYA Vs. SEJU MOOLYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the 6th defendant being aggrieved by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 6.2.2007 passed in O.S. No. 119/2003 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) at Mangalore, wherein, the suit filed by respondents No. 1 to 3/plaintiffs No. 1 to 3 for partition in respect of suit schedule properties, has been decreed it is the case of Respondents No. 1 to 3 herein that, appellant and Respondents No. 4 to 9 are the members of the undivided Hindu Family and are the successors of common ancestor Late Somanna Moolya and Mrs. Appu Hengsu, who is the wife of Late Somanna Moolya. Somanna Moolya and Appu Hengsu had six children namely Devu Moolya, deceased, is now succeeded by his wile and children, Respondents No. 4 to 8. Seju Moolya-Respondent No. 1, Chennappa Moolya-Appellant; Sanjeevi-Respondent No. 9: Anand-Respondent No. 2 and Lakshmi-Respondent No. 3 and they are the legal heirs of the deceased Somanna Moolya and Appu Hengsu.

(2.) It is the further case of Respondents No. 1 to 3 that the suit schedule property included the Joint Family Property and other properties, which belonged to children of Somanna Moolya i.e., appellant-Chennappa Moolya, who is none other than 6th defendant and first defendant Late Devu Moolya. On tenancy right, they have obtained the said lands on tenancy and they were cultivating the schedule properties as agricultural tenants. On coming into force of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, Devu Moolya and his brother Chennappa Moolya have jointly filed declaration in Form 7 claiming occupancy right. The Land Tribunal. Mangalore after conducting an enquiry, passed an order on 25.10.1977 in LRT No. 2-1440/76-77 and LRT. No. 559/1974-75 granted occupancy rights.

(3.) It is the case of Respondents No. 1 to 3 that the occupancy rights was granted jointly in the name of all the legal representatives of deceased Somanna Moolya and they have got their share in the suit schedule property and it is not the exclusive rights of the appellant and deceased defendant No. 1. Therefore, the appellant contended that Respondents No. 1, 4 to 8 gave rights in Plaint Schedule Properties and Respondents No. 3 to 7 issued notice dated 13.10.2002 calling upon the appellant and Respondents No. 4 to 8 to divide the properties. Subsequently, Respondents No. 1 to 3 herein filed O.S. No. 119/2003 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) at Mangalore, praying for a decree of Partition and Separate Possession.