RAMACHANDRA Vs. SUREKHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is filed by defendant No.1, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dtd. 30/10/2019 passed in O.S.No.69/2014, on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court'), which is confirmed by the judgment and order dtd. 31/1/2022 passed in R.A.No.3/2020, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court').

(2.) The aforesaid suit in O.S.No.69/2014 is filed by respondent No.1 for partition and separate possession in respect of (i)land in R.S.No.123/2 measuring 9 guntas, (ii)land in R.S.No.123/1 measuring 39 guntas both at Raibag, (iii)land in R.S.No.542 measuring 4 acres 38 guntas, (iv)land in R.S.No.547 measuring 4 acres; contending inter alia that one Maruti, the original propositus had three sons namely Babu (deceased), Pundalik (deceased) and Annasab-defendant No.6. That the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the daughter and son respectively of the aforesaid deceased-Babu. Defendant No.2 is the wife and defendants No.3 to 5 are the sons of deceased Pundalik. It is contended that the deceased Babu and his aforesaid two brothers were residing separately. That during their lifetime, only Item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit property bearing R.S.No.123/2 measuring 9 guntas and R.S.No.123/1 measuring 39 guntas situated at Jalalpur village of Raibag taluq, remained in the joint possession and therefore the said properties are the ancestral joint family properties and the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6 are entitled for share in the properties. As regards the suit properties Item Nos.3 and 4, namely, land in R.S.No.542 measuring 4 acres 38 guntas and R.S.No.547 measuring 4 acres are concerned, they are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant No.1 alone, as the said properties were granted in the name of the mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 respectively.

(3.) As regards the property in R.S.No.542 measuring 4 acres 38 guntas and R.S.No.547 measuring 4 acres granted were the government lands and the same were allotted to defendant No.1 and his mother as they were cultivating the land. Hence, they are the joint family properties. That their mother Akkatai died leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as her legal representatives. That there was a compromise entered into in O.S.No.322/2013 without the knowledge and concurrence of the plaintiff and as such, the same was not binding. Hence, the plaintiff sought for partition and separate possession of the aforesaid four items of the property.