LAWS(KAR)-2016-8-82

NAGAPPA Vs. YALLAWWA

Decided On August 01, 2016
NAGAPPA; AMASIDDA; REVANASIDDA; IRAPPA; KAMALAWWA Appellant
V/S
YALLAWWA; KHUNAWWA; PADAMAWWA; BOURAWWA; DEVAPPA; GOURAWWA; SHANTAWWA; DANAWWA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' revision petition against the order dated 05.12.2015 on I.A.Nos.17, 18 and 19 made in O.S.No.200/2008, on the file of the 1st Additional Civil Judge, JMFC-I, Vijayapur, allowing the applications filed by the plaintiff under Order XXII Rule 4 of CPC, under Order XXII Rule 9 of CPC and application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties, contending that she is the wife of the deceased Malakari, who was the son of Irappa Jeerankalagi. Defendant Nos.1(A) to 1(E) are the wife and sons of the plaintiff's husband brother. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the brother and sisters of the plaintiff's husband. The plaintiff's father-in-law Irappa Jeeranklagi, who was the original owner of the suit land bearing Sy.Nos.312/1, 312/3, 312/5, measuring 2 acres 23 guntas, 39 guntas, 1 acre 15 guntas, situated at Kannur village and also land bearing Sy.Nos.312/2, 312/4, measuring 8 acres 1t guntas situated at Kannur village, were cultivated by the plaintiff's husband and defendants jointly. It is further case of the plaintiff that the original owner Irappa who was the plaintiff's husband's father has sold land bearing Sy.Nos.312/1, 312/2 and 312/5 during his life time. The plaintiff has got 1/6th share in the suit landed property bearing No.312/3 and 312/4 in the year 1987. After the death of plaintiff's father-in-law and plaintiff's husband, the name of the plaintiff has been entered in the suit property including the defendants. The plaintiff has requested 1/6th share to the defendants in the suit properties but the same has been denied. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.200/2008.

(3.) The defendants have filed the written statement and denied the plaint averments and stated that they have spent huge amount for improvement of the suit land. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.