BASALINGAWWA Vs. RAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal by the plaintiffs Nos.1(a) to 1(c) assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below dtd. 23/6/2018 in R.A. No.2/2014 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 1/1/2014 in O.S. No.274/2007 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Mudhol.

(2.) The parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

(3.) The original plaintiff, one Smt. Basalingawwa filed the said suit seeking the relief of declaration and consequential injunction contending that the original propositus Sri Timmappa @ Timmanna died in the year 1997 leaving behind his wife - original plaintiff and children namely Ramanna - defendant No.1, Bhimappadefendant No.2 and deceased Laxman as his legal heirs. It is contended that the elder son Ramanna was given in adoption to one Hanamanth Hugar and the said Ramanna has severed from the family. It is stated that after the death of the original propositus, all the properties owned by the propositus were inherited by the plaintiff and her children. It is further stated that the said Laxman had married defendant No.3-Sarojini, but later on, due to uncordial relationship between Laxman and defendant No.3-Sarojini, there was divorce as per the customs prevailing in their community and that deceased Laxman had divorced defendant No.3 in the presence of elders. That defendant No.4 is no way concerned with the deceased Laxman, but she is claiming herself to be the wife of deceased Laxman and defendant No.5 is the daughter of deceased Laxman through defendant No.4. It is stated that after divorce with defendant No.3, deceased Laxman, at no point of time, had married defendant No.4. During the lifetime of Laxman, there was a partition between Laxman and his brothers on 16/6/1998 and in the partition, the suit schedule properties have fallen to the share of deceased Laxman. That the plaintiff being the mother and class-I heir of deceased Laxman, has inherited the properties of the deceased Laxman alone and that defendant Nos.3 to 5 have no right, whatsoever nature, over the suit schedule properties.