JAHRABI Vs. MASABBI BUDDESAB PATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and Decree of the dismissal of the suit filed for the relief of partition and separate possession in O.S.No.176/1993 dtd. 31/1/2004 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Belagavi.

(2.) The parties are referred to in the original ranking as plaintiffs and defendants for the convenience of the Court and to avoid confusion.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court is that, the Schedule Item Nos.1 and 2 properties i.e. agricultural lands bearing R.S.No.149/1, measuring 8 acres situated at Pant Balekundri village, taluka Belagavi and property bearing R.S.No.149/2 measuring 7 acres 32 guntas, are the tenanted lands and the plaintiffs are the tenants in common and having their half share in the suit properties. The defendant No.4 is the tenant in R.S.No.149/1 and his name is appearing in the record of rights and hence, he has been made as formal party to the suit and the names of the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are appearing in the record of rights. The plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule properties as protected tenants from time immemorial and the names are appeared in the record of rights from the year 1965-66. Even earlier the names of father and husband of the plaintiffs and father and husband of the defendants up to three names were appearing and after their demise, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have succeeded to the suit properties. It is also contended that the deceased Buddesab and Appasab who are the brothers had filed a suit for injunction against one Ramanagouda Patil which was numbered as O.S.No.428/1967 and the suit was decreed in the year 1969. Before filing the said suit, in the year 1967, the father of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 and the husband of the defendant No.1 have amicably settled in the Balekundri Jamat that, half of the suit land will be of the plaintiffs father and remaining half share will be defendant Nos.1 to 3's father and husband. The father of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 was older to the father of the plaintiffs and his name was shown as tenant in Form No.1 submitted by the owner Ramanagouda Patil of Balekundri on 20/12/1996 and since then both the father of plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3's father together were cultivating the suit properties. It is also contended that the said Ramanagouda Patil had filed complaint against the father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and others in the year 1969. The father of the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.2 and 3 obtained decree in O.S.No.428/1967 and then appeal was filed and the same was also dismissed. It is contended that, after the death of the husband and father of the defendant Nos.1 to 3, the defendant No.1 alone brought Warsa and filed Form No.10 and got mutated their names. Till the date of death of father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 did not object the plaintiffs, but after the death of the plaintiffs' father the defendants started harassing and picked up quarrels and in spite demand made to partition the property, they did not partition the property and hence, the suit is filed seeking the relief of partition and separate possession.