PARVATHAMMA Vs. KAMALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents seeking partition and separate possession of share in all the plaint schedule properties. One Paruvegowda of Shashivala village of Arasikere taluk had two sons by name, Basavegowda and Malle-gowda. Mallegowda had a wife by name Marulamma and that the plaintiff is the only daughter of Mallegowda and Marulamma. Respondents-defendants are the legal representatives of the other son of Paruvegowda, namely, Basavegowda. According to the plaint averments, Mallegowda died 50 years prior to the institution of the suit. The suit is instituted in the year 1993. Therefore, it has to be presumed Mallegowda died in the year 1943 and that three years later to his death his widow Marulamma also died having behind her the plaintiff as her sole legal heir. After the death of Mallegowda and Marulamma, his brother Basavegowda continued to be in possession of all the joint family properties and was managing the properties as a karta of the family till his death and thereafter the defendants are managing the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the Court to allot half share in all the suit schedule properties.

(2.) THE defendants contested the case by filing a detailed written statement. In the written statement, the relationship between the parties was admitted. According to the defendants, Mallegowda died in the year 1932 leaving behind him his widow-Marulamma and plaintiff. According to them within six months thereafter his widow Marulllam also died. Except the properties situated in Rudrapura village of Tiptur taluk, the defendants admitted the remaining suit properties as ancestral properties. According to them, the plaintiff's marriage was performed in a grand scale in lieu of her share, therefore she is not entitled to claim any share in the properties and requested the Court to dismiss the suit. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court :

(3.) BEFORE the trial Court, the plaintiff's son Chidananda Murthy has been examined as Power of Attorney Holder of the plaintiff. In addition to that, the plaintiff has relied upon the evidence of one Chennabasappa and Mehaboob who have been examined as P. Ws. 2 and 3. The plaintiff has also relied upon Exs. P-1 to P-24. On behalf of the defendants, the 1st defendant Kamalamma has been examined as D. W. 1. In addition to that the defendants also have examined three more witnesses as D. W. 2 to D. W. 4 and have relied upon Exs. D-1 to D-14. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, held that Mallegowda died in the year 1941 and that the father of the defendants Basavegowda was the karta of the joint family, since the father of the plaintiff died in the year 1941, the plaintiff is entitled to claim a share as per the Mysore Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933 and further held that the properties situated in Rudrapura village were also purchased out of the joint family income. Applying the provisions of the Mysore Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933, the trial Court held that immediately after the death of Mallegowda, his widow Marulamma succeeded to half of the share to be allotted in favour of Mallegowda and that the plaintiff being his daughter was entitled to 1/4 of Mallegowda's share and ultimately the suit of the plaintiff decreed by holding that she is entitled to 1/8 share in all the joint family properties. Being not satisfied with the Judgment and decree of the trial Court, the present appeal is filed by the plaintiff.