MAHADEVAMMA AND ORS. Vs. THAYAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the plaintiffs is that one Kalisiddaiah was the grand father of the plaintiff and great -grandfather of the defendants. The suit schedule properties were Chakra Inam lands reserved for enjoyment by the inferior village workers called Chakras and for the services that the Chakras was performing. Such Chakras were allowed to enjoy and cultivate the said lands. During the year 1932, in terms of the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Nanjanagud, Kalisiddaiah, the grand father of the plaintiff and great -grand -father of the defendants was appointed as Chakra temporarily as per the order dated 23.04.1932. Since then, the said Kalisiddaiah was rendering service of Chakra. After his death, his sons Basavaiah, Marinanjaiah, Dodda Nanjaiah, Rachaiah and Siddaiah continued to render the service as Chakra and continued in possession, enjoyment and cultivation of the lands. Marinanjaiah had no male issues. His daughters were married and joined their husbands. Doddananjaiah and another son of Kalisiddaiah died issueless. After the death of Basavaiah, Rachaiah and Siddaiah continued as Chakra with their sons. Basavaiah, the father of the first plaintiff died about 20 years back. Rachaiah, the father of plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 expired about 25 years back. Siddaiah, the father of the defendants was the eldest member in the family. After the demise of Basavaiah and Rachaiah, Siddaiah was the head of the family. In the mean time, the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act came into force. Siddaiah, the father of defendants appears to have filed applications for re -grant and the suit schedule properties was re -granted. The khatha of the lands was restored in the name of Kaali Siddaiah. It is claimed that the three surviving sons to Kaali Siddaiah are entitled to 1/3rd share each. Therefore, the first plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share and plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to 1/3rd share. Defendants are entitled to get 1/3rd share being the legal heirs of Kaali Siddaiah. Under these circumstances, Siddaiah, the father of the defendant falsely representing as Kaali Siddaiah in collusion with the Revenue Authorities, got the katha mutated in the name of his sons. Plaintiffs were unaware of the said facts. Plaintiffs came to know the said change during the year 2004. Thereafter, a legal notice was issued to the defendants claiming the share. The same was denied by the defendants. Hence, they filed the instant suit seeking for a decree of partition of 2/3rd share in respect of the suit schedule property.

(2.) ON service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and denied the claim of the plaintiffs so also the genealogy claimed by the plaintiffs. It was contended that the suit property was the exclusive property of the defendants. That the plaintiffs are in no way related with the genealogy of the defendants. Further, the defendants challenged the alleged Chakra Inam dated 23.04.1932. It is further contended that the plaintiffs only to gain unlawful and illegal profits are agitating such facts. It is further contended that on the death of Kaali Siddaiah, his surviving sons continued to be as Chakra. The death of Marisiddaiah and Doddananjaiah was also denied. Further, the father of the defendants seeking for re -grant to the exclusion of the plaintiffs was denied. It was further contended that the father of defendants one Kaali Siddaiah @ Siddaiah was the son of Kaali Siddaiah and Kalamma who were the residents of Haradanahalli village. The said Kaali Siddaiah @ Siddaiah S/o. Kaali Siddaiah and Kalamma was the only son. He had married Madamma and had children by name Basavaiah, Siddaiah and Nanjundaiah. He later on married Nagamma viz., the second wife and had children by name Shivaiah, Nataraju, Mahadevaiah, Maakaiah and Nataraju. Plaintiffs are in no way related to the genealogy of the defendants. On the death of the father of the defendants, defendants together came to Somawarpet and they were living together. The father of the defendants Kaali Siddaiah was Kulavadi. On the acquisition of land, compensation was awarded by the Assistant Commissioner, Nanjanagud. However, the said land was re -granted to the defendants' father in the year 1961 subject to certain conditions. Therefore, such granted land is the absolute property of the defendants. The plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the properties. The plaintiffs have created a false genealogy. That the suit is barred by limitation. Hence, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) DO the plaintiff's prove that they are entitled for their 2/3rd share in the suit schedule properties?