HANUMATH BHEEMAPPA SANADI Vs. RUDRAPPA THAMMANNA SANADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by the plaintiffs is directed against the Judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Gokak, in RA30/ 1998 dated 5-12-2002 reversing the judgment and decree passed in O. S. No. 692/89 by the Court of addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) Ralbag and consequently dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 692/89.

(2.) THE essential facts of the case leading upto this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows : the plaintifs filed the suit seeking for a decree for equitable partition awarding 2/3rd share or legitimate share of the plaintiffs with separate possession in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and for mesne profits and costs.

(3.) IT is averred in the plaint that hanamant Sanadi was the original propositus. He had three sons by name Tammani, yamanappa and Bhimappa and two daughters Kallawwa and Kashawa. Kallawwa and kahawa have died. The plaintiff No. 6 is the wife. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the children of bhimappa. Plaintiff No. 5 is the son of yamanappa. Plaintiff No. 6 is the wife of late yamanappa. Plaintiff Nos. 7 and 8 are daughters of Yamanappa and defendants 1, 2, 3 are the sons of Tammani. Defendant no. 4 is the wife of late Tammani. Tangewa is the Wife of defendant No. 2 and defendants 6 and 7 are the sons of defendant No. 1. It is averred in the plaint that original propositus was serving as sanadi for the village Alakanur and he was granted the schedule property for his services by the Government and he was in actual possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. It is averred that names of defendants 1 and 2 and plaintiffs 1, 2 and 5 were brought for the purpose of joint arrangement and defendant No. 2 again got entered his wife's name in the record of rights and defendant no. 1 got entered his sons name and in the record of rights in respect of some of the agricultural lands and the 'said entries are without notice to the plaintiffs. It is further averred that the entries have been made for the sake of family arrangement and there was no equitable partition and separate possession by metes and bounds by the parties till the date of filing of the suit. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 have got 1/3rd share as they are the lrs. of Bhimappa and plaintiffs 5 to 8 are entitled to 1/3rd share as the LRs. , of yamanappa and defendants being the LRs. of Tammani are entitled to 1/3rd share. It is averred that since differences are arising between the plaintiffs and the defendants and among the woman folk in the joint family, it was impossible for the members to continue as members of the joint family and plaintiffs have demanded for legitimate share by effecting equitable partition and separate possession and wherefor the suit.