B. KANIKARAJ AND ORS. Vs. CHINNAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are heard and disposed of together by this common judgment as they are preferred against the very judgment of the trial court.

(2.) IT was the case of the plaintiffs that plaintiffs 2 and 3 and defendants 1 to 5 were the children of plaintiff No. 1 Chinnamma and her husband late C. Baluswamy. Defendant No. 6 was the widow of another son of plaintiff No. 1 and late Baluswamy, by name Anthonyswamy. It was claimed that the father -in -law of plaintiff No. 1 and the grand father of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 and defendants No. 1 to 5, Chinnappa had acquired the suit schedule property in item No. 1 at a partition, which took place between himself and his brothers under a registered partition deed dated 6.10.1942. Chinnappa and his wife Marithayamma had then purchased item No. 2 of the suit schedule property bearing Municipal No. 131, New No. 22, Civil Station, 6th Division, Chandni Chowk Road, Bengaluru. Chinnappa and his wife had died intestate leaving behind them, their son Baluswamy as their legal heir and therefore, after the death of his parents, Balu Swamy succeeded to the suit schedule properties and was in possession of the same. Baluswamy died leaving behind his widow and his children, namely, plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 to 5 and husband of defendant No. 6, late Anthonyswamy as his legal heir and they had succeeded to the properties. The plaintiffs were stated to be Indian Christians and governed by the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Hereinafter referred to as the '1925 Act', for brevity). Under the provisions of the said 1925 Act, the plaintiff No. 1 was entitled to one -third share in both the suit items of property and plaintiffs 2 and 3 and defendants 1 to 5 were entitled to one -seventh share each in the remaining 2/3 share of the suit schedule properties. No partition was effected in respect of the suit schedule properties between them and the defendants and they continue to be in joint possession and enjoyment. It was alleged that defendant No. 1 started to act detrimental to their interests and therefore they demanded partition of their legitimate share. When there was refusal, the suit was filed. Initially, the suit was filed only against defendants 1 to 5 and 9 and later defendant No. 6 was impleaded. The defendants entered appearance and it is defendant No. 4 who filed written statement which was adopted by defendants 1 to 3. Defendant No. 6 had filed her own written statement. Defendant No. 5 had failed to appear and was placed ex -parte.

(3.) The trial court had then on the basis of the evidence and the arguments canvassed had arrived at the following findings.