YAMANAVVA Vs. TIPPANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The respondents though being served with notice, unrepresented.

(2.) In this appeal, the appellant, who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court sought for the judgment and decree of the partition claiming that one Mallappa is the propositus of the family of the plaintiff and the defendants who died on 22/9/1997. The plaintiff and the defendants are Class-I heirs. The suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of Mallappa. The plaintiff and the defendants inherit 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties. Inspite of demand made to partition the property, the defendants refused to give her share. Hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed their written statement and denied the contention of the plaintiff. The suit schedule 'B' property is only imaginary. The fixed deposits and LIC policy, if any, are not the joint family properties. It is contended that the plaintiff is not a member. It is contended that Mallappa was not the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties nor the plaintiff got 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties. The deceased Mallappa during his lifetime partitioned the 'A' schedule ancestral property to the defendants, which are cultivated by the defendants. The deceased Mallappa had retained only movables i.e., cattles worth of Rs.25,000.00, gold ornaments and silver utensils worth of Rs.1,00,000.00 and even some other funds, which were later given to his daughters. The deceased Mallappa had borrowed private loans for Rs.6.00 to 7 lakhs and his sons are struggling to discharge the loans. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues: