SIDDALINGAPPA Vs. SHIVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, who are the legal representatives of original defendant, have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 17.8.2006 passed in appeal R.A. No. 8/2003 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chamaraja Nagar confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.9.2002 passed in O.S. No. 78/98 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Gundlupet, granting decree in part holding that the respondent -plaintiff and defendants are the joint owners.

(2.) THE facts leading to this case are that respondent plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for the relief of declaration that defendants and herself were the joint owners of the suit schedule properties and that, she was entitled for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit schedule properties. Alternatively, she had also sought that if the court comes to the conclusion that suit schedule properties were already partitioned between the parties and southern half share of both properties were fallen to the share of the plaintiff's father, then declaration and possession of the above said southern half share of the suit schedule properties in her favour with metes and bounds. The suit schedule properties are the two landed properties bearing Sy. Nos. 107/1 and 109 situated at Nenekatte village, Kasaba Hobli, Gundlupet Taluk, as shown in the plaint schedule. The plaintiff has furnished the genealogy of the family in para No. 2 of the plaint.

(3.) THE defendant in the written statement admitting the genealogy contended that Madamma, daughter of Nanjappa, had three other daughters Gangamma, Gowramma and another. He admitted that plaintiff's father Kalappa and himself jointly purchased the suit schedule properties from Kempamma and Madamma. He further contended that in the year 1964, plaintiff's father and himself entered into an unregistered panchayat settlement and family arrangement came into existence. The entire suit schedule properties fell to his share and other properties fallen to the share of the plaintiff's father and hence, plaintiff's father had no right over the suit schedule properties. The defendant being in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the entire suit schedule properties for more than statutory period of twelve years, without interference from the plaintiff or anybody, perfected his title to the property.