JOSEPH K. A. Vs. MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the order dtd. 22/7/2022 passed on I.A.Nos.2 and 3 in O.S.No.70/2021 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady.

(2.) This appeal is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(3.) The claim of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that item No.1 of the suit schedule property is allotted to her grandfather vide sale deed dtd. 14/12/1961. It is also the claim of the plaintiff in respect of item No.2 that her grandfather was cultivating the properties morefully described in item No.2 of the suit schedule property on lease. The grandfather of the plaintiff was having more than 27 acres of land in Neriya village including the plaint schedule property. The grandfather of the plaintiff Augustine has five male and one female children. The said Augustine in order to avoid the complications between his children, orally divided the properties belonging to him and made a family arrangement in the year 1964 and asked defendant No.1 to take possession of item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property. Accordingly, defendant No.1 took the possession of item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property for the benefit of his family consisting of plaintiff and defendants and constructed a separate house in item No.1 of the suit schedule property and started cultivating in item Nos.1 and 2 suit schedule property for the benefit of his family consisting of plaintiff and defendant No.2 to 6. It is also contended that the plaintiff and defendants were living together in a common mess in the family house situated in item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff and other defendants were helping defendant No.1 in cultivating the suit schedule property. Defendant No.1 as the head of the family was taking care of item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule property and also made an application before the concerned authority on account of advent of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and defendant No.1 being the head of the family filed declaration in Form No.7 claiming occupancy right over item No.2 of the suit schedule property and the same was considered and allowed. It is also her contention that defendant No.1 executed a settlement deed in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 6 hence, she has filed a suit for the relief of partition claiming 1/7th share and inter alia sought for an order of injunction if defendant Nos.3 to 6 further dispose of the property, her right will be curtailed.