SIDDAPPA Vs. JOTI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter is posted for condonation of delay of 26 days in filing, the same is heard for admission.

(2.) The defendant No. 1 filed this regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2015 made in R.A. No. 48/2014 on the file of the III Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Belagavi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2014 made in O.S. No. 14/2012 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, decreeing the suit declaring that plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in all the suit schedule properties and alienation made in favour of defendant No. 3 and father of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 and also the relinquishment transaction made by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of defendant No. 3 not binding on the share of the plaintiff.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that the original propositus Sidramappa died leaving behind defendant Nos. 1 and 2 as his legal heirs. The plaintiff is daughter of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 3 is daughter of defendant No. 2. The suit A and B schedule properties are situated at Inchal village and they are joint family ancestral properties and they are in joint possession and cultivation and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. It is further case of plaintiff that, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have sold 3 acres of land to the father of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 in Sy. No. 236 of Inchal village in the year 1994. The name of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 is entered in the above said property as per M.E. No. 6749. The same came to the knowledge of plaintiff in the 2nd week of November, 2011, when the plaintiff saw the record of rights. At the time of execution of the sale deed, the plaintiff was a minor. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have no absolute right, title and interest to alienate the ancestral property and therefore, sale deed is not binding on the share of the plaintiff After the death of Veerabhadrappa Sangolli the names of defendant Nos. 4 and 5 are entered to the suit property to the extent of 3 acres in Block No. 236 of Inchal village as legal heirs as per M.E. No. 7315. It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have relinquished their rights in favour of defendant No. 3 to the extent of 3 acres of land in Block No. 236 as per M.E. No. 7333. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 have no absolute rights to relinquish the property as absolute owners of ancestral property. The said relinquishment is made behind the back and without knowledge of the plaintiff Therefore, the said relinquishment transaction is not binding on the share of the plaintiff in the suit property. The fact of the said relinquishment came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only in the month of November 2011. Thereafter, the plaintiff approached defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and enquired about the transactions, but the defendants 1 and 2 did not respond properly. The plaintiff requested defendants 1 and 2 to effect partition in respect of suit properties to allot her legitimate 1/4th share. But defendant No. 1 has got half share in all the suit schedule properties. Hence plaintiff being the daughter of defendnat -1 is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. Therefore, she filed the present suit.