VEERABADRAPPA Vs. SWETHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28.3.2012 passed by the Principal District Judge, Chikmagalur, in R.A. No.208/2010, who confirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.8.2010 passed in O.S. No.1/2006 by the Senior Civil Judge and Principal JMFC, Tarikere.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein were the plaintiffs before the trial Court. The plaintiffs filed the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of 2/3rd share out of 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties and also sought for mesne profits in respect of the suit schedule properties. It was contended by the plaintiffs in the said suit that, the defendants and themselves were the members of the Hindu undivided family and the suit schedule properties were the joint family 4 properties till the date of filing of the suit. The propositor Mahadevappa was the Kartha of the joint family having two sons, namely, Chandappa (defendant No.1) and Padiyappa @ Rudrappa. The said Padiyappa and his wife Eramma had no issues and khatha of the respective shares was entered in their names. Before the death of said Padiyappa, family partition was performed between Chandappa and himself. But, unfortunately, Padiyappa and his wife died without issues and without appointing any one as legal representatives. Therefore, the respective properties fallen to the share of Padiyappa were reverted back to Chandappa and katha was entered in the name of Chandappa as legal representative of Padiyappa. The said Chandappa had three sons and two daughters. The second son of Chandappa died leaving behind his wife Rathnamma. They also had no issues. The plaintiffs are the daughters of Devaraju, the 3rd son of Chandappa. It was contended that due to family dispute between their father and mother, they were residing separately. Their father did not provide any maintenance to them and their mother. The defendants were intended to sell 5 the joint family properties to third parties without any family necessity, but, to meet their personal expenses. The mother of the plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S. No.26/2002 for partition and separate possession and for mesne profits as minor guardian. But, she did not take care of the Court proceedings and the said suit was dismissed for non prosecution. Hence, the plaintiffs lost confidence in their mother and accordingly, filed the aforesaid suit.

(3.) THE Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs partly giving 2/3rd share in 1/5th share that fallen to the father of the plaintiffs. Defendants challenged the said judgment and decree by filing R.A. No.208/2010 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Chikmagalur, and the said Court by its judgment and decree dated 28.3.2012 dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree passed by the 7 Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said decree, the appellant has preferred the present appeal before this Court.