RACHAPPA Vs. PARVATHEVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNSUCCESSFUL defendants No.1 and 3 of an original suit bearing O.S.No.96/2002 which was pending on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Kushtagi, have approached this Court by filing an appeal under Section 100 of CPC challenging the divergent findings given in O.S.No.96/2002 and R.A.No.15/2007. Respondents 1 and 2 herein were the plaintiffs in the said suit. Respondent No.3 was defendant No.2 in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 3 as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

(2.) SUIT had been filed seeking the reliefs of partition and separate possession in respect of three items of agricultural lands situated in Hanamanal Village, Kushtagi Taluk of Koppal District. Suit came to be dismissed only on the ground of limitation based on finding on issue No.6. In the appeal filed by the plaintiffs this finding was reversed and consequently suit came to be decreed as prayed for.

(3.) FIRST plaintiff is the wife of one Mahantappa and second plaintiff is the daughter of the said Mahantappa. First appellant -first defendant Rachappa is the brother of deceased Mahantappa. Third defendant Vijaya Mahantesh is the purchaser of the property. Second defendant is the son of Irappa, who was another brother of Mahantappa. According to the plaintiffs, one Basappa Nagalapur was the propositus and he had possessed these three items of land as described in the schedule appended to the plaint. The said Basappa Nagalapur had three sons viz., Mahantappa, the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff No.2 and Rachappa defendant No.1 and Irappa, father of defendant No.2. Mahantappa and Irappa are no more. The said Mahantappa died about 20 years prior to the filing of the suit. Irappa father of defendant No.2 died two years prior to the suit. According to the plaintiffs, they have inherited the share of Mahantappa and that they have 1/3rd undivided share. According to them, plaintiffs and defendants constitute joint family and that first defendant has been managing the joint family affairs. Since first defendant tried to alienate their undivided share during January 2002, they questioned his authority and notice was also got issued on 25.01.2002 to defendants 1 and 3 demanding their legitimate share. Since no response was found, they had to file a suit for partition and separate possession.