PUTTAMMA Vs. H K RAMEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal filed against the judgment and decree passed in RA No. 44/95 on the file of Civil judge, Senior Division, Holenarasipura arising of the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 207/92 on the file of Munsiff, Holenarasipura.

(2.) THE appellants are the defendants. The respondent- plaintiff filed a suit for partition and possession of his 3/10th share in the suit properties consisting of agricultural lands and house property and the movables mentioned in the B schedule. One Sathigowda is the propositus, father of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 4. The first defendant is the wife of Sathigowda. The propositus died in the year 1990. The plaintiff submits that the suit properties are ancestral properties, after demise of Sathigowda claims that he is entitled to a share in the property, accordingly filed a suit for partition.

(3.) THE defendants contend that the plaintiff on his marriage become illatom son-in-law to his in laws, he severed his links with the natural family, therefore not entitled to any share in the property. The defendants also plead ouster and adverse possession. The Trial Court rejected the defence contentions allowed the suit of the plaintiff declaring 2/9th share in the A schedule property and rejected the relief in respect of the B schedule property. The first appellate Court confirmed the findings in the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, dismissed the appeal of the defendants. Hence, the second appeal.