G K KEMPEGOWDA Vs. LUCINDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the Judgment and Decree dated August 21, 1974 made in O.S No. 130 of 1968 on the file of the Civil Judge, Mandya.

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are these : P. P. Samuel was a businessman at Mandya. He had one son (defendant-2) and two daughters (plaintiff and defendant-3). The plaintiff was devoted to the religious life and so she joined Convent. In 1950 she became a Nun under the name "Sister Lucinda". In 1961, Samuel died leaving behind his wife (defendant-1) and children with certain properties. In 1968, Sister Lucinda instituted the suit for partition claiming 2/9th share in her father's estate more particularly described in the schedule annexed to the plaint. It was inter alia averred in the plaint that after the demise of P P. Samuel, the suit properties were in the joint possession of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. Defendant-2 without the plaintiff's consent or knowledge created some sort of interest in the suit properties in favour of third parties. The plaintiff is not bound by any such transactions. Defendant-2 did not resist the suit. He conveniently kept himself away from the Court He did not even file a written statement. Defendants 1 and 3 have joined hands with the plaintiff. They have also claimed their share in the suit properties. The suit was resisted primarily by the alienees, defendants 4 and 6. defendant-4 in her written statement claimed title in respect of item No. 1 in the plaint schedule. She has purchased the same under a registered sale deed Exhibit D-1 dated May 7, 1966 for Rs. 48,000/- from defendants 1 to 3 She has also purchased item No. 2 under Exhibit D-5 dated May 31, 1966 for Rs. 10,000/-. She has contended that plaintiff who is a Nun cannot claim any right in the estate of her father and she had also voluntarily relinquished her rights. Defendant-6 in his written statemen has asserted that he is the owner of hem No. 3 . ince purchased under sale deed Exhibit D-11 dated September 12, 1968 for ks. 30.000/- from defendant-5. He has also referred to the earlier transaction by which Samuel during his life time had himself alienated the same property. The contentions of the other defendants are not relevant in these appeals anJ, therefore, they are not set out.

(3.) On these pleadings, the trial Court framed, among others, the following issues : 1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 2/9th share in the suit property ? 2) Whether the plaintiff has renounced the world and become a Nun in 1950 and hence not entitled to maintain the suit for partition and possession of any share ? 3) Whether the 4th defendant became owner of the suit items 1 and 2 as urged by her ? 4) Whether the 5th defendant acquired title to suit item No. 3 and conferred valid title upon the 6th defendant in respect of the said property ?