PUTTAMMA Vs. S.G. JAYANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 7/11/2018 passed in R.A.No.74/2013 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Shivamogga.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the respondent No.1/plaintiff before the Trial Court is that she is the daughter of late S G Govindappa and defendant No.1; defendant Nos.2 and 3 are her brothers and defendants Nos.4 and 5 are her sisters. It is also her case that she had another sister by name Shashikala who died issueless. It is contended that they are the members of Hindu undivided joint family and suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are the joint family properties and they are in joint possession of the same. Item Nos.1 and 4 of 'A' schedule were the tenanted lands cultivated by S G Govindappa as a tenant during his lifetime and he died intestate on 8/8/1975. Thereafter, the defendants being the legal representatives of deceased Govindappa, succeeded to the tenancy and got the said properties granted for the benefit of the family. Item Nos.2 and 3 of 'A' schedule property is absolutely belonged to S G Govindappa and it was granted to him under Darkasth by the Government. 'B' schedule property is an ancestral and joint family property. After the death of S G Govindappa, defendant No.1 was managing the joint family properties with the help of defendant No.2. Now, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are managing the said properties as kartha of the joint family. After the marriage, her relationship with defendant Nos.1 to 3 got strained and during April 2010, she came to know that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are mismanaging the joint family properties as well as they are attempting to alienate 'B' schedule property. It is also the case of the plaintiff that she demanded for partition and the same was turned down by the defendants. On obtaining the documents pertaining to the suit properties, she came to know that defendant Nos.1 to 4, in collusion with each other, have created partition deed pertaining to 'A' schedule property among themselves behind her back. Hence, she filed the suit for the relief of declaration, partition and separate possession and mesne profits.