C G AMANULLA KHAN Vs. ANWAR KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by defendants in O. S. No. 92/1993 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chickmagalur, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 11-6-1998.

(2.) THE essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of parties before the trial Court are as follows :

(3.) DEFENDANTS resisted the suit denying the averments made in the plaint that: G. G. Khan had married Smt. Khuthejabi and that the plaintiff was born out of the wedlock between G. G. Khan and Smt. Khuthejabi and that G. G. Khan after the death of Smt. Khuthejabi, had married Ayesha and after the death of Ayesha, married Smt. Husanabi and after her death married Smt. Fathimabi as averred in the plaint. It is averred in the written statement that Smt. Husanabi was the first wife of G. G. Khan and defendants 1 and 2 were born out of the said wedlock. The marriage between Hussainabi and G. G. Khan was performed on 15-8-1942. Hussainabi died on 6-1-1950 and after her death, G. G. Khan married Smt. Fathimabi and out of the said wedlock, defendants 3 to 6 were born and Smt. Fathimabi died on 27-1-1983. The plaintiff is not the son of G. G. Khan. It is further averred that: the second item of the suit schedule property had been given by G. G. Khan to his second wife Fathimabi in lieu of Mahr by way of declaration dated 7-8-1964; subsequently, Smt. Fathimabi, by way of declaration dated 24-11-1982 has given the said item No. 2 of schedule properties to defendants 5 and 6 for meeting the expenses of their marriage; after the death of G. G. Khan, Smt. Hussainabi and Smt. Fathimabi, defendants have partitioned the properties detailed in the plaint schedule under a registered partition deed dated 15-7-1987 and they have been in possession of their respective shares. The plaintiff was an orphan and the father of defendants, has as charity, helped the plaintiff by giving education. Therefore, the father of defendants has specifically mentioned as guardian of the pupil at the time when the plaintiff was admitted to the school by him and taking undue advantage of the said fact the plaintiff has come up with the plea that the plaintiff is the son of late G. G. Khan. Defendants are not aware whether the plaintiff was in service or has retired from service. It is also averred that the suit is barred by time and proper court fee is not paid. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.