CHIKKANNA Vs. KAMALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 19/2/2022, passed in R.A.No.277/2019, on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Tumakuru.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that they are the daughters of one Hanumaiah @ Hanumappa through the second wife Thimmakka who has been arraigned as defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 is the son of Hanumaiah @ Hanumappa through the first wife and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are daughters of Hanumappa @ Hanumaiah through first wife and claimed that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and they sought for an order to grant a decree for granting 1/6th share in each of the item Nos.1 to 5 properties. The defendants in the written statement contend that the property at item Nos.1, 3 and 4 was sold to one Mohammed Akbar Saheb on 12/1/1961 and item No.2 was sold to one Narasimhaiah on the very same day and the said properties are re-purchased by defendant No.2 on 3/6/1975 and 3/1/1977 and also claimed that item No.5 house property was independently purchased by defendant No.2. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case examined plaintiff No.1 as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 6. On the other hand, the wife of Hanumaiah examined herself as D.W.1 and examined one witness as D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 10. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the suit properties are joint family properties and the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/6th share each in item Nos.1 to 4 only. The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that though defendant No.2 contend that he had purchased the property independently, but source of income for having purchased the property has not been proved. The said finding is challenged in R.A.No.277/2019 by defendant No.2.