NAGAMMA Vs. JAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court that plaintiff No.1 is the second wife of and plaintiff No.2 is the daughter of one Pujar Eranna and plaintiff No.1. The said Pujar Eranna had two brothers namely Dodda Bommaiah and Sanna Bommaiah and the suit schedule properties are the Hindu coparcenery properties of the said Eranna and his brothers. In the partition, the suit schedule property fell into the share of the Eranna and he is in possession of the share allotted to him. The said Eranna had a son by name Naganna from his first wife-Marakka who died at very young age and later his wife separated from the joint family by relinquishing her share by virtue of the deed dtd. 20/11/1982. The first wife-Marakka also died within a couple of years ago before filing the suit. Hence, the plaintiffs are the only heirs to inherit the properties of the Eranna. It is further submits that the said Eranna had executed a Will dtd. 26/3/1985 in favour of his first wife-Marakka and plaintiff No.2 bequeathing the suit schedule properties. Thereafter, the defendant has somehow managed to create a concocted Will dtd. 8/2/1989 in which, the suit schedule properties are bequeathed in his favour by the Eranna. It is further contended that the said Eranna had no right over the properties to execute any sort of Will since the said properties were purely coparcenary properties. But the defendant taking undue advantage of the Will, is denying the plaintiffs' title over the suit schedule properties and interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit.

(3.) In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant appeared before the Court and filed his written statement contending that he is the fostered son of the said Eranna and the Will dtd. 8/2/1989 is the last Will of Eranna and according to the said Will, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. The defendant further contends that the substantial issue raised in this case was already decided in O.S.No.57/1994 and hence, the suit is barred by limitation and hence, the plaintiffs have not entitled for any share.