DRAKSHAYANAMMA Vs. SHADAKSHARAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission and I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that one Veerappa and Ramakka of Bettadahalli had no sons but only daughters, Gowramma, Veeramma, Gangamma and Drakshayanamma and that Gowramma is no more and she is survived by defendant Nos.2 to 6. It is contended that Veeramma died without marriage and issues and Gangamma is the plaintiff and Drakshayanamma is the first defendant and they are the only legal representatives of Veerappa and Ramakka. It is contended that the plaintiff and defendants constitute a Hindu Undivided Family and the suit properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants and all are enjoying them jointly. It is contended that the plaintiff and defendants are entitled for equal share in the suit properties and that Veerappa and Ramakka died intestate. It is contended that the first defendant, being resident of Bettadahalli is looking after the joint family properties who is in a position to maintain the properties without waste and in turn the defendants are taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff is an aged woman and residing away from the suit property and hence, wasting the income for un-necessary affairs and things with an intention to diminish the share value of the plaintiff and also she has failed to furnish any proper account to the plaintiff. It is contended that, as such the plaintiff demanded her share of 1/3rd in the suit properties about two months prior to the filing of the suit but, the defendants have refused to allot the share of the plaintiff.

(3.) In pursuance of the suit summons, the defendants have appeared before the Court and the defendant Nos.1 to 4 have filed a common written statement. The defendant Nos.1 to 4 have denied the plaint averments, except admitting the relationship between the parties. It is contended that the suit properties are both ancestral and self-acquired properties of late Veerappa and he was in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same during his life time and about more than 50 years ago, the father of the plaintiff performed her marriage and thereafter, she is living in the house of her husband and she has no connection whatsoever with her parents' house. It is alleged that after 2-3 years, the marriage of Gowramma, mother of defendant Nos.2 to 6 was performed by Veerappa and after her marriage, late Gowramma was residing with her husband at Herur and she was also not having any connection with her parents. It is contended that, after the marriage of plaintiff and late Gowramma, first defendant and her sister Veeramma were living with their father and enjoying the suit properties jointly. It is also contended that as first defendant and her sister Veeramma were unmarried and their father was more than 55 years old and in a sound and healthy state of mind, in order to safeguard the interest of unmarried daughters, he had executed a registered Will dtd. 12/7/1959 bequeathing the suit properties and another property bearing Sy.No.63/1A situated at Bettadahalli in favour of first defendant and her sister Veeramma and that the father of the plaintiff died in 1962. It is contended that, at the time of death of their father, first defendant was unmarried and the plaintiff and late Gowramma, who were in their husbands' houses did not co-operate with first defendant and did not take any initiative in the welfare of first defendant and her sister. It is contended that, after the death of their father, the first defendant had to face lot of suffering and the village elders took initiative and brought the husband of first defendant and performed the marriage of first defendant with great difficulty in 1963 and that plaintiff nor late Gowramma helped first defendant in her marriage and the first defendant has taken lot of pain in maintaining the properties and her sister, who was handicapped and was able to manage with the assistance of her husband, who used to live both at Bettadahalli and Oorukere. It is contended that, in order to overcome the financial crisis, the first defendant sold one of the properties i.e., Sy.No.63/1A which she got under the Will in 1994 after getting the khatha and pahani in her name. It is contended that the plaintiff and other defendants have not questioned the above sale so far and it shows that the plaintiff has accepted the execution of Will in favour of first defendant and as such, the present suit of the plaintiff is not at all maintainable and with malafide intention, the present suit is filed.