VOKKALIGARA KALAPPA DEAD Vs. PARVATHAMMA DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) this appeal is by the legal representatives of the defendant vokkaligara kalappa. The respondents are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff. The parties are referred hereinafter either as the plaintiff or the defendant for the sake of convenience. The plaintiffs suit is for partition and separate possession of half share in the plaint schedule properties under the following circumstances: kalayya was the original owner who died in the year 1941. He had two wives, ponnamma and gowramma. Ponnaxmma died earlier to kalayya. Gowramma died, according to the plaint, in the year 1958. Plaintiff is the daughter of kalayya and gowramma. Kalayya had two other children through ponnamma, nanjappa, who died in the year, 1952 and kalappa the defendant. Nanjappa had a daughter, however she is not a party to the present litigation and it seems that her claim in the family properties were satisfied by settlement between the said lady and the present defendant in o.s. 20 of 1979. The present suit was filed in the year 1980. According to the plaintiff, on the death of kalayya, gowramma succeeded to the interest of kalayya by virtue of hindu women's rights to property Act, 1937 (hereinafter referred as 'the 1937 act'). This interest stood enlarged and gowramma inherited an absolute interest under the Provisions of Section 14 of the hindu succession Act, 1956 (for short 'h.9. Act, 1956'). The plaint proceeds on the assumption that the properties were inherited by the surviving son kalappa and widow gowramma, there is no reference to the other son of nanjappa in the plaint. The defendant denied the right of the plaintiff. He asserted that he was in possession of the property throughout. According to him there was some negotiation between the parties in which the plaintiff and her son-in-law agreed to recognise the exclusive ownership of the defendant in the properties. The defendant further asserted that gowramma died in the year 1954. The defendant further asserted that he has been asserting exclusive right since the year 1942 and 1960 and that he perfected his title over the suit properties by adverse possession also. The defendant pleaded that he had a brother by name nanjappa and the said nanjappa had a daughter muddaxnma; nanjappa used to wear a garb of sanyasi but he was not completely disassociated from all worldly affairs. However he was being called as a sanyasi as he was wearing the dress of a sanyasi and was a little more interested in prayer and meditation when compared to other persons. It is in this written statement there is a reference to the suit filed by muddamma as per o,s, 20 of 1979 against kalappa and ultimate settlement between them, whereunder defendant paid Rs. 10,000/- to muddamma in full settlement of the claim. It is unnecessary to refer to other averments in the written statement. The trial court framed the following issues for consideration: "1. Whether plaintiffs prove that the suit properties were inherited both by gowramma and defendant after the death of kalayya on 19-7-1941?

(2.) whether plaintiffs prove that kalayya's second wifegowramma died in the year 1958 (amended) or whether defendant proves that she died in the year 1954?

(3.) plaintiffs prove that deceased gowramma till her deathand thereafter her daughter parvathamma were in joint possesaion and enjoyment of the suit properties along with defendant?