V SONNE GOWDA Vs. RATNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant in O.S.No.96/2005 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Kolar, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2006, allowing the suit for declaration, partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties, has presented this appeal.

(2.) Respondent instituted O.S.No.96/2005 arraigning the appellant as defendant, for declaration, partition and separate possession of 1/2 share in the suit schedule properties claiming to be joint family ancestral properties and asserting that they are related as sister and brother respectively i.e., to say that the grand father of the parties were brothers. According to the plaintiff, the propositees by name Sonne Gowda had two sons by name Ramegowda and Sonnegowda. The said Ramegowda had a son by name Doddavenkatagowda, while Sonne Gowda had a son by name Chikkavenkatagowda, who continued to be in joint possession of the ancestral properties. Doddavenkategowda is said to have taken in marriage one Chowdamma and out of the wedlock, plaintiff was born and on the death of Doddavenkategowda, the family continued to be in joint along with Chikkavenkatagowda, his wife Narayanamma and their son V.Sonne Gowda-defendant/appellant. It was further asserted that Chikkavenkatagowda was acting as a kartha of the joint family and that the revenue entries in respect of the suit schedule properties stood in the name of Chowdamma and Chikkavenkatagowda. Chowdamma and Chikkavenkatagowda, it is said jointly sold the joint family property bearing Sy.No.40/21 measuring 26 guntas of Kadudevandahalli, for family necessity on 13.12.1979. That Chikkavenkatagowda, it is said died leaving behind the defendant as his legal representative, while the wife of Chikkavenkatagowda pre-deceased him. Chowdamma died leaving behind the plaintiff as her L.R. Plaintiff though given in marriage to one Hiranyagowda of Kurubooru Village continued in joint possession of the suit schedule properties along with the defendant. It was alleged that the defendant had his name recorded in the revenue records on a false statement that Chowdamma and the defendant had partitioned the joint family properties on 8.2.1986. The plaintiff's demand for partition having met with resistance, resulted in the suit.

(3.) The appellant/defendant opposed the suit by filing written statement interalia contending that the plaintiff's mother by name Chowdamma and the defendant had partitioned the joint family properties on 8.2.1986, whereunder 'A' schedule properties fell to the share of Chowdamma, while 'B' schedule properties fell to the share of defendant, in addition to payment of Rs.1,00,000/- in cash to the said Chowdamma on a condition that she would not claim any further share in the 'B' schedule properties. In addition, it was contended that though there was a partition, nevertheless, it was suggested that the defendant would have to extend "Arishina Kumkuma sary and jacket" to the plaintiff every year.