PUTTAPPA Vs. MALIGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition against the decision in Misc. Appeal No. 7/51-52 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Hassan, setting aside the order of review in Mis. 142 of 49-50 on the file of the Munsiff, Hassan, granting review of the decree in O. S. No. 351 of 48-49.

(2.) The property in dispute was purchased by Puttappa, the present petitioner, from one Mahadeviah and his son Renukaradhya. Bramarambha, their minor daughter, filed a suit claiming the property as belonging to her deceased mother and after her death Malligamma respondent 1 in this case was brought on record, as the L. R. of Bramarambha. The ultimate decision of the High Court in that case is that Malligamma was entitled to 1/4th share of the property while Puttappa the present petitioner was entitled to 3/4th share. When Malligamma was executing the decree in her favour, the three younger brothers of Puttappa, the petitioner in this case, filed a suit for declaration of their title to the property in dispute and for an injunction restraining Malligamma from executing the decree in her favour. Puttappa, the present petitioner, was also made a defendant, but he remained 'ex parte'. Thereafter there was a compromise between the petitioner's brothers and Malligamma, the latter being allowed to take 1/4th share, 3/4th share being allowed to be taken by the three brothers. There was a decree in accordance with this compromise. But Puttappa, the present petitioner, filed a review petition saying that he was not aware of the compromise and that he should get the entire 1/4th share that had fallen to the share of Malligamma or at least 3/4th of her share. The review was granted by the learned Munsiff.

(3.) It will be noticed that the learned Munsiff was wrong in allowing the review petition and giving the petitioner 3/4th of the 1/4th share that had fallen to the share of Malligamma. The petitioner knew full well that he who had purchased the property got only 3/4th's share and if at all his brothers had any claim to it as members of an undivided family, they could only get 3/4th of the 3/4th's share, which according to the High Court decision he was entitled to in the property. He should have, therefore, sought for getting 1/4th share in the 3/4th share to which he and his brothers were entitled to. But this he did not apply for, as evidently he and his brothers intended to deprive Malligamma of her 1/4th share in the said property. The learned Subordinate Judge was therefore right in setting aside the order passed in review.