RAJESH NAIK Vs. G.SUSHEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court.

(2.) IT was the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the defendant were tenants of lands described in the plaint schedule. The Land Tribunal had granted the land jointly in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to one half share in the suit 'A' schedule properties before the death of his father. But subsequent to the filing of the suit, since the plaintiff's father, namely, defendant no.1 died intestate on 22.12.2004, the undivided half share of the deceased defendant no.1, it was contended, would devolve on the legal representatives, apart from the plaintiff himself, and eight others including his mother. Therefore, it was contended that the plaintiff would be entitled to nine sixteenth share in the suit properties. This was the basic claim in the suit.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the appellant would canvass the very grounds urged in the appeal that it was a joint application by the appellant and his father and therefore, the granted land ought to have been divided in equal shares between him and his father and he would yet be entitled to one more share in the father's share. This contention is the basic premise, on which the present appeal is filed.