BHIMAPPA RAMACHANDRAPPA AMATE Vs. SHRIKANT MARUTHI MIRAJAKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is by the l5t defendant in O. S. No. 6/74 on the file of the learned Civil judge, Gadag and it is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3. 3. 2000 in R. A. No. 170/89 on the file of the learned III All. District Judge, Dharwad, allowing the appeal and reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that one Smt. Nagavva Kom Narasappa Navale filed the suit for declaration claiming that she is the absolute owner of Western half of the suit schedule l (a), l (b) and 1 (c) and the entire property described in Schedule 1 (d) and half of the property described in 1 (c) to the eastern side, which are in possession of defendant Nos. 2 to 5 as tenants, and that she is entitled for the compensation towards the value of the land and for consequential relief of injunction.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff was that the suit properties formally belong to her husband Narasappa navale, who was in the actual possession and enjoyment of all the properties. He died in 1952 leaving behind him two of his widows. One widow was the plaintiff and the other is one bayavva who died in the year 1972. After the death of her husband, the plaintiff and other widow Bayavva were enjoying the suit properties and after some time, the Eastern side of schedule l (c) of property was leased to the deceased father of the 2nd defendant and husband of 3rd defendant and to 4th and 5"1 defendants who had been cultivating the land from then on. That in the remaining suit property i. e. , western half of the schedule (a), (b) and (c), the plaintiff and the other widow Bayavva were getting the lands cultivated on hire basis and that the tenants were paying the land revenue on their behalf since both of them were women. It is stated that the 1st defendant - Bhimappa Ramachandrappa Amate had gone to the suit lands some days back and started obstructing the plaintiff in the enjoyment of the suit properties claiming that he has been adopted by her- late husband Narasappa Navale under a registered adoption deed in the year 1951 and further claimed that his name has been entered in the record of rights in respect of the suit lands and thus he claimed the right, interest and title over the suit properties. The plaintiff contended that the 1st defendant was not the adopted son of her deceased husband and she also denied the adoption deed. However, the plaintiff made an alternative contention contending that if the 1st defendant is held to be the adopted son of her deceased husband narasappa, she and her co- widow Bayavva had the right to claim maintenance in the suit properties after the death of their husband. As such and as provided under Section 14 (1) of the hindu Succession Act, 1956, she and her co-widow Bayavva have become the absolute owners of all the properties. The plaintiff contended that the 1st defendant was obstructing the plaintiff from enjoying the suit schedule properties and that the said defendant is of bad character. In view of the alleged obstruction from the 1st defendant, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking declaration and other consequential reliefs.