CHANNAMMA HENGSU Vs. RAGAVA BONTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs 3 to 15 in O.S.No.26 of 1965 on the file of the Civil Judge, Udipi, are the appellants in this appeal. The said suit was originally instituted by Annappa Pujari, plaintiff 1, as the yajaman of an aliyasanthana family. On his death, Seethu Hengsu, plaintiff 2, continued the proceedings as the yajamanthi of the family. She too died during the pendency of the suit. After her death, Seshu Pujari became the yajman of the family. As he was not willing to continue the suit for and on behalf of the family immediately after the death of plaintiff 2, plaintiffs 3 to 14 applied to the Court below to be brought on record as supplemental plaintiffs and to permit them to continue the suit on behalf of the family. They also prayed that Seshu Pujari and Meenakshi, the other two members of the family, may be impleaded as supplemental defendants 7 and 8. The Court below accordingly permitted plaintiffs 3 to 14 to be impleaded as supplemental plaintiffs and Seshu Pujari and Meenakshi as supplemental defendants 7 and 8. Thereafter Seshu Pujari was transposed as plaintiff 15 and allowed to prosieeute the suit as the yajman of the family. The plaintiffs and one Veerappa Pujari were members of an undivided family governed by the Aliyasanthana Law. During the life-time of Veerappa Pujari, the properties described in the plaint schedule had been given to the exclusive possession of Veerappa Pujari under a maintenance arrangement amongst the members of the family which took place in the year 1949. Veerappa Pujari however continued to be an undivided member of the family. He died on 25-10-1962. On his death, defendants 1 to 6 who were his children continued to be in possession and enjoyment of the family properti.es which had been entrusted to the possession of Veerappa Pujari under the maintenance arrangement. The above suit was, therefore, filed on behalf of the members of the family for possession of the plaint schedule properties and past mesne profits from 25-10-62 till the date of suit and future mesne profits till date of delivery of possession. The case of the plaintiffs was that on the death of Veerappa Pujari, defendants 1 to 6 who were not members of the family according to the Aliyasanthana Law, could not remain in possession of the properties of the family which had been given to Veerappa Pujari, and, therefore, it was open to the plaintiffs to recover possession of the same along with mesne profits.

(2.) Defendants 1 to 6, among other pleas, pleaded that they were entitled to remain in possession of the properties as they had become co-owners of the properties along with the other members of the family by virtue of sub-sec. (2) of S.7 of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), under which they succeeded to the interest of Veerappa Pujari in the joint family properties. Their principal ground of attack was that the, suit for possession and mesne profits was not maintainable against them as they had become the co-owners of the suit properties and other properties of the family along with the plaintiffs. We find it unnecessary to refer to the other pleas raised by the defendants in this case, because no contention was urged before us on the basis of those pleas.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suit, Aggrieved by the decree of the trial Court, plaintiffs 3 to 15 have filed this appeal. Plaintiff 15 has preferred the appeal in the capacity of the yajman of the family representing not merely plaintiffs 3 to 14, but all the other members of the family who are not parties to the suit.