SHANTHARAMA Vs. RATHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the defendant has challenged the judgment and decree dtd. 18/3/2021 passed in O.S.No.03/2017 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Bantwal, D.K. (for brevity 'the Trial Court').

(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred as per their status before the Trial Court.

(3.) Brief facts of the plaintiff's case are, suit schedule 'B' properties are the Chalageni property of Smt.Ummakke, the grandmother of the plaintiff and defendant. As a tenant, after the advent of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for brevity 'the Act') Ummakke filed an application under Sec. 48A of the Act before the Land Tribunal, Bantwal, seeking conferring of occupancy rights in TNC No.2792/74-75. By order dtd. 30/9/1977, the occupancy rights were conferred in her favour. Ummakke died intestate leaving behind her two daughters by name Kamala and Ramakke. Kamala died issueless. Plaintiff and defendant are the children of Ramakke. Ramakke died on 17/6/2007 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant as her surviving legal heirs, who are entitled to succeed to the assets of Ramakke, which are acquired by her from her mother Ummakke. In the year 2014, plaintiff came to know that the defendant has made a petition to the Deputy Tahsildar claiming mutation in her name on the basis of a created and fraudulent Will said to have been executed by Ramakke. The deceased Ramakke, two months prior to her death was disabled, bed ridden due to stroke and brain haemorrhage. She was mentally disoriented and was not in a position to put her signature. The plaintiff after coming to know about the conduct of the defendant in placing reliance on the Will for change of mutation, objected for the change of khata. The defendant preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner and it came to be dismissed. The defendant set up the forged Will and fraudulently making claim over the entire property on which the plaintiff has also got equal right as Ramakke did not execute any Will in favour of the defendant. After the death of Ramakke, both plaintiff and defendant are entitled to equal share in the suit 'B' schedule properties. In the first week of November 2016, she made a claim for partition, which was denied by the defendant. Hence, she filed the instant suit seeking partition.