GULABI Vs. MANJU BHOVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This regular second appeal is filed by the 4th defendant against the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2013 made in unnumbered regular appeal on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and ACJM at Kundapura, dismissing the appeal on the ground of delay and laches confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

(2.) The present respondent No. 1 who is the plaintiff before the Trial Court had filed a suit for partition and declaration that alleged sale deed dated 30.06,1998 executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 4 is not binding on the plaintiff contended that the parties to the suit are governed by Hindu Mithakshara Law of Inheritance. That on 1.3.1974 and prior to that the undivided joint Mithakshara Family of the plaintiff consisting of father of plaintiff viz., Badiya alias Govinda Bhovi and his brother Venka Bhovi and certain other persons who were agricultural tenants were in actual cultivation and enjoyment of 'A' schedule properties and certain other properties. The Land Tribunal, Kundapura had granted occupancy rights over the 'A' schedule properties in favour of them for and on behalf of the family and thereafter, Form No. 10 registration certificate was also issued as per law. Thereafter, the said two branches had partitioned the said properties in which 'A' schedule properties were allotted to the share of Govinda alias Badiya Bhovi branch.

(3.) It is the further case of the plaintiff that after the death of said Badiya alias Govinda Bhovi, the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have been in actual joint possession and enjoyment of 'A' schedule properties. In fact the plaintiff is the De Jure Manager of the family after the death of his father. Defendants are now not co-operating with the plaintiff to cultivate the 'A' schedule properties and to manage the same. Therefore he has been asking the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 to co-operate for partition of 'A' schedule properties as per law. Even though they have agreed for the same they have been postponing the same and therefore on 11.1.1989, the defendant No. 1 told him that he had already sold and conveyed item No. 9 of 'A' schedule property in favour of his wife-defendant No. 4 and he will not join with him for any partition etc. Therefore suit was filed for partition and separate possession.