BASAWARAJAPPA Vs. GOURAMMA ALIAS SHAKUNTALA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS 1 to 3 in O. S 105/1985 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Divn) Yadgiri are the appellants in this second appeal, while the 4th plaintiff has been arrayed as the 5th respondent in this appeal.

(2.) PLAINTIFFS had filed a suit for declaration and possession of the suit schedule properties and for further injunction impleading one Smt. Gouramma wife of Channa Reddy who himself was the son of one Basanna propositus of a joint family as the 1st respondent and her daughters Parvatidevi and Akkamahadevi as defendants 2 and 3, one Tanga Khaja Hussain Bharpeth purchaser of some of the suit schedule properties from the said Gouramma, as 4th respondent in the suit

(3.) THE case of the plaintiffs briefly stated is that the father of the 1st plaintiff and the husband of 1st defendant and one Irappa constituted a joint family being the sons of one Basanna, that the husband of the 1st defendant namely Sri Channa Reddy died in the year 1952 at Hyderabad, that the other son of Basanna namely Irappa died even 43 years back leaving behind his widow, that the said Muddamma did not have any male issues but had only two daughters The 1st defendant Gouramma also does not have any male issues but having only (two) daughters, defendants 2 and 3 The father of plaintiff 1 died in the year 1960 leaving behind him, plaintiff 1 and one Girijamma his sister. It was further pleaded that the said Basavarajappa had 3 sons and 2 daughters namely Channareddy, Shivshankarappa, Veerupakshappa, Umadevi and Padmabatti who were joined the 1st plaintiff as co- plaintiffs being plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 It was also pleaded that after the death of Channa Reddy, husband of 1st defendant Gouramma in the year 1952 and with the prior death of the other brother Irappa even 43 years back, father of the 1st plaintiff was the only surviving male heir in the family and the entire joint family properties devolved on him and he had continued the properties as such Plaintiffs pleaded that the 1st defendant Gouramma and Muddamma wife of Irappa had only a claim for maintenance as their husbands had died even prior to the Hindu Succession Act 1956 came in to force and that the 1st defendant Gouramma did not acquire any right, title or interest in respect of joint family properties even though her husband died in the year 1952 i. e. , subsequent to the Hindu Womens right to property Act, 1937 though had come into force it had no application in the area from where the parties originated in as much as it was a Part B State and this Act had no application to that area and as such even after the death of the husband of the 1st defendant she could only claim maintenance in the joint family properties The 1st plaintiff being the surviving male heir in the joint family and none of the other family heirs having inherited any property from out of the income of the joint family properties either under the Hindu Womens right to property Act, 1937 or under the Hindu Succession Act, the entire joint family properties were to be shared amongst the surviving male heirs who are plaintiffs 1 to 3 That notwithstanding this position the 1st defendant pursuant to certain declaration that had been given by the 1st plaintiff before the Land Tribunal, Shahapur under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act for finalising the extent of holding of the joint family properties after recording the statement of the 1st plaintiff and defendant 1, under the ill advice of her younger son in law and daughters had sought for mutating the lands indicated in the plaint D schedule properties in her favour as having been allotted to her share being the widow of Channa Reddy and inspite of the objections by the plaintiff the Special Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga having acceded to her request, that mutation entry was challenged However as the entries effected by the Spl. Deputy Commissioner in the revenue records was illegal plaintiffs had filed O S 1/1982 before the Court of Munsiff, Shahapur and the said suit having been dismissed on certain technical grounds and against that an appeal was filed as R A 33/1983 which was also dismissed on 3 11 1984 and taking advantage of the said dismissal defendant 1 had dispossessed the plaintiffs forcibly from plaint D Schedule property and also sold certain items in that property in favour of the 4th defendant in-spite of the resistance and opposition on the part of the plaintiffs, it became necessary for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration that defendants 1 to 3 have no right, title or interest in the suit schedule D properties that the 4th defendant did not get any title or interest in respect of property which he has purchased from the let defendant, for recovery of possession of the properties and for consequential injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment thereafter Plaintiffs have also sought for declaration to invalidate the sale deed dated 4 11 1985 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 4th defendant in respect of one of the suit D Schedule properties. The geneology of the family is as under: family Pedigree basanna (died 60 years back)Wife Shankramma (died 50 years back)Irappa (died 43 years back) Shivashankarappa Channareddy died wife Muddamma