BASAMMA Vs. GUTTAPPAGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.48/2006 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Shorapur, dated 22.09.2008 is called in question in this appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

(2.) TO begin with, it would be beneficial to refer to the genealogy of the family of the parties in the matter, which is as under:

(3.) FROM the aforementioned, it is clear that Chanbassappa Gowda is the propositus. The name of his wife is Baslingamma. Chanbassappa Gowda has got two sons namely Sangangouda and Guttappagowda and two daughters namely Shantamma (defendant No.2) and Basamma (defendant No.6). The first son Sangangouda expired leaving behind plaintiff Nos.1, 2, 3 and defendant No.5. The second son Guttappagouda died leaving behind defendant Nos.1, 3 and 4. The legal representatives of Sangangouda i.e., the first son of Chanbassappa Gowda filed suit in O.S.No.48/2006 for partition and separate possession of agricultural properties and house, whereas, O.S.No.39/2006 is filed by Guttappagowda, the second son of Chanbassappa Gowda for partition and separate possession only with regard to a house. The defendants opposed the suit in O.S.No.48/2006 contending that there is already partition between the family members prior to 1968 and therefore, there cannot be any decree for partition. Per contra, it is the case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.48/2006 that the family continued to be joint till the filing of the suit and therefore, they are entitled to share in accordance with law. The Trial Court framed the following issues in both the suits. Issues in O.S.No.48/2006: