BASAVANAPPA Vs. SRIDEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

(2.) Present appeal is by Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dtd. 10/12/2020 passed in R.A.No.116/2018 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate Court'), in and by which, while dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants herein, the First Appellate Court confirmed the Judgment and Decree dtd. 2/8/2018 passed in O.S.No.103/2016 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Kalaburagi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs holding them to be entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs, namely, Smt.Sridevi and Neelmma, daughters of Defendant No.1-Sidramappa filed the suit for partition against father and brother Basavannappa-Defendant No.2 and his two sons, viz., Mallikarjun and Nagaraj - defendant Nos.3 and 4 respectively, who are the appellants before this Court seeking partition of suit schedule properties consisting of land in Survey No.128/4 measuring 18 acres 4 guntas situated at Syed Chincholi; land in Survey No.59 measuring 01 acre 01 gunta; land in Survey No.44 measuring 01 acre 04 guntas and House No.6/5 consisting of nine rooms and open space situated at Ganajalkhed village, Kumasi Gram Panchayath, on the premise that the suit properties are the joint family ancestral properties and the plaintiffs and defendants constituted the members of joint family properties. The plaintiffs/Defendant No.1 1 are entitled for 1/4th equal share in the suit schedule properties whereas Defendants 3 and 4 together would be entitled for 1/4th share. That the plaintiffs requested the defendant, to partition the property which was declined. The plaintiffs thereafter obtained the copies of the revenue records pertaining to properties and learnt that name of Defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 have been entered into in the revenue records of 8/11/2003 and based on the said entry, defendants are attempting to alienate the property. It is further alleged that Defendant No.2 at the relevant time was working as a Village Accountant and by misusing his office, got his name and name of his two sons entered in the revenue records without knowledge of the plaintiffs. Hence, the suit.

(3.) On service of summons, defendants appeared. Defendant No.1 filed written statement admitting the plaint averments and also sought for 1/4th share in the suit properties. Defendant No.2 in his written statement contended that there was a family partition long ago and in that, house situated at Ganajalkhed village was allotted to Plaintiff No.2 and also gold and cash were given to the plaintiffs during the year 2003-04. Suit lands and house property were partitioned between the defendants and the suit lands were allotted to Defendant No.2 while Defendant No.1 retained the house property. As such, there is no joint family status existing between the parties. The plaintiffs are residing in their respective matrimonial houses and they have no concern or entitlement to the suit properties. The name of Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have been entered into in the revenue records based on the partition entered into amongst them. As such, sought for dismissal of the suit.