SHIVSHARNAPPA Vs. PEERAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the concurrent finding in O.S.No.371/1999 by learned I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Kalaburagi and in R.A.No.67/2006 by III Addl. District Judge, Kalaburagi whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants was dismissed. The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court.

(2.) The dispute between the parties revolves around the question whether deceased Ratnawwa had adopted the defendant No1 Peerappa and he succeeded to the properties held by Ratnawwa. The parties are referred as per their ranks before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The brief facts which are relevant for this appeal are as below: The Sy.No.104 measuring 27 acres 6 guntas and the house property panchayat No.2-194 are the suit properties. The plaintiff contended that the suit properties were owned and possessed by Ratnawwa W/o Pandappa and she was the member of the family plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff contends that the plaintiff the defendant No.3 and 4 are the brothers and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are sons of their another brother Chandramappa and that the defendant No.5 is the son of Sharanappa. They contend that the family of Ramanna consisted of his two children Sharanappa and Ratnawwa and Ratnawwa died in jointness leaving behind the suit properties. Though the family pedigree shown and narrated in plaint is not clear, the fact that Ratnavva was owner and possessor of suit properties is not in dispute. Therefore, the plaintiff and defendants being the legal representatives are entitled to get the share in the suit properties. It is contended that the defendant No.1 i.e. Peerappa behind the back of the plaintiff got entered his name in the records of the suit schedule properties and assured the plaintiff in partitioning the suit properties. The other family properties had got divided. Believing the words of defendant No.1, who assured that the suit property would be partitioned at a later point of time and he went on giving some cash share in respect of the suit properties to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff contends that he being the legal representative of Ratnawwa and he performed all the rituals and maintained her during her life time, she use to assure the plaintiff that her properties would be given to the plaintiff only after her demise. Therefore, the plaintiff contends that he is entitled to get 1/3rd share along with the defendant Nos.3 and 4 jointly and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to get 1/3rd share and the defendant No.5 is entitled for remaining 1/3rd share. Since the defendant No.1 refused to effect the partition during 1999, he was constrained to file the present suit for relief of partition and separate possession.