BEERAPPA Vs. FAKIRAPPA BEERAPPA BANDROLLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by plaintiff No. 2, questioning the: judgment and decree dated 21-9-2005 in O. S, No. 108/ 2002 on the file of the Civil Judge: (Sr. Dn.), saundatti.

(2.) THE suit is one for partition and separate possession. Case of the plaintiff is that, fakirappa, son of Gadigeppa Barrdrolli and smt. Mayawwa, daughter of one Kanappa mangasuli were the original propositus for both the families of plaintiffs and defendants-1 to 3. Fakirappa had two sons namely, beerappa and Yallappa. Defendants-1 to 3 are the children of Beerappa. Plaintiff No. 1 is the wife of Yellappa, plaintiff No. 2 is the son. Original propositus Fakirappa died in the year 1927 leaving behind Beerappa and Yellappa. Beerappa died in the year 1946 at Saundatti. His wife also died subsequently. Defendant no. 1 is the son of Beerappa. Defendants-2 and 3 are daughters. Second son of Fakirappa namely, Yellappa also died in the year 1989 leaving behind first plaintiff Smt. Dyamawwa, the wife and Beerappa, the son. Yellappa had another son by name Fakirappa. However, fakirappa has gone in adoption to Ningappa pattadakal family. The propositus Fakirappa was rendering Gram Chakaraki (Halabaki)and the lands were inam lands attached to that office. After the death of Fakirappa, the chakari was continued by his two sons namely beerappa and Yellappa. Defendant No. 1 fakirappa is settled in the village Halagatti in ramdurg taluk. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are given in marriage. The suit CTS property bearing Nos. 2223, 2226 are standing in the name of plaintiff No. 2, CTS No. 2225 is standing in the name of the plaintiff No. 2 along with defendant Nos. 4 to 6. Defendante-4 to 6 are owners in possession to the extent of 1/3rd portion on the northern side of CTS No. 2225 and plaintiffs have not made any claim to the said portion. However, only for formality, defendants-4 to 6 have been impleaded.

(3.) THE suit properties are joint family properties in the enjoyment of plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 3. There is no partition at any point of time and they are all governed by principles of Hindu Law. Plaintiffs demanded for partition, however, the defendant no. 1 refused to the same, stating that the plaintiffs have no right to seek partition of the suit schedule property and also claimed that the lands belong to him. As such, plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for partition.