JATANGI CHANNAPP Vs. JATANGI ERANNA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant in O.S. No. 34/2006 has preferred this second appeal, assailing judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 78/2008 dated 14/12/2015, passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ballari (Sitting at Hosapete), by which, judgment and decree of the trial Court has been confirmed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the trial Court.

(3.) The first respondent herein was the plaintiff. He filed a suit against the appellant herein, who was defendant No. 1 and defendant Nos. 2 to 12, seeking relief of declaration of his share in the suit schedule property i.e., 'A', 'B' and 'C properties and for delivery of possession of the same and a direction was sought to defendant Nos. 2 to 12, to deposit their respective loan amount with interest. According to the plaintiff, defendant Nos. 1 and 9 are brothers. They are the children of Jatangi Hanumanthappa and Jatangi Pakkiramma. They divided their ancestral properties about three decades ago. Plaintiff and defendant took one share each and one share was taken by their parents. After partition, their father died in the year 1979. Thereafter, their mother Pakkiramma, enjoyed schedule 'A' and 'B' properties. Out of the income of those properties, the mother used to lend monies to defendant Nos. 2 to 12. Mother of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 died on 11/10/2004. Hence, plaintiff sought for partition and separate possession of the mother's share, but defendant No. 1 did not allot plaintiff his share in the 'A' schedule property. Plaintiff demanded his share in 'A' and 'B' schedule properties to defendant No. 1 but the latter went on postponing the division. According to plaintiff, the mother of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 had given loans to defendant Nos. 2 to 12 and plaintiff was entitled to half share in that. Plaintiff earlier had filed O.S. No. 9/2005 before the Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Hospet, seeking partition and separate possession of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Defendant No. 1 appeared in that suit and raised a preliminary issue with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. The plaint was returned and presented before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and the same was registered as URP. No. 92/2005. But the office objections were not complied with. Hence, the same was dismissed as not pressed and a fresh suit has been filed, seeking the aforesaid reliefs.