SHARNAMMA Vs. RENUKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by the defendant No.6 being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dtd. 21/10/2010 passed in R.A.No.137/2009 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Gulbarga (First Appellate Court) by which while allowing the said appeal the First Appellate Court set aside the Judgment and decree dtd. 23/7/2009 passed in O.S.No.90/2005 by Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Sedam (Trial Court) and partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff is entitled for half share in all the suit properties except item No.1.

(2.) The above suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent No.1 herein for relief of partition and separate possession in respect of 8 items of suit schedule properties contending interalia that she is the daughter of defendant No.1 namely Sri. Annayya and that her marriage was performed in the year 1994. That originally one Sri.Sharanayya the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff was the owner in possession of the suit properties. That defendant No.2 namely Smt.Chanbasamma is the wife of said Sri. Sharanayya and defendant No.1 is the son of said Sri. Sharanayya. That the said Sri. Sharanayya had another son by name Sri.Channayya who passed away leaving behind defendant Nos.3 to 5 being his wife and children as his legal heirs. Thus, the father of the plaintiff namely Annayya, the defendant No.1 and his brother Channayya being the sons and defendant No.2 being the wife were the legal heirs of said Sharanayya who inherited the suit schedule properties. As such the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. That Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are living jointly while defendant Nos.3 to 5 were living separately. That Defendant No.6 is no way concerned with the family of defendant No.1 though she falsely claimed herself to be the wife of defendant No.1. It is further contended that the plaintiff and her mother by name Siddamma were neglected by defendant No.1 and they were driven out of their home by defendant No.1 during the year 1985-86. Plaintiff and her mother Siddamma had initiated proceedings under Sec. 125 of Cr.P.C against defendant No.1 which was allowed granting maintenance. That the Defendant No.1 and said Siddamma had filed the compromise petition and accordingly the said matter was disposed of. That though the plaintiff was married in the year 1994 she continued to be the co-parcener and joint possessor of the suit schedule properties along with defendant Nos.1 to 5. That the plaintiff is having her specific share in each item of the suit schedule properties. That the defendant No.1 was trying to alienate suit schedule properties to deny the share of the plaintiff. That defendant No.6 being a stranger to the family of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 5, in collusion with Panchayat Officials got her name entered in respect of house property bearing No.1-5/2. That since the request of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession was not conceded by the defendant Nos.1 to 5, the plaintiff was constrained to file suit for partition and separate possession.

(3.) Despite service of summons defendants 3 to 5 did not appear and were placed exparte. Defendants 1, 2 and 6 appeared and contested the suit. Defendant No.1 filed written statement which was adopted by defendants 2 and 6.