JADAGADEVI Vs. SHOBHADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment and decree dtd. 24/8/2009 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Chincholi, in O.S.No.104/2006 and the judgment and order dtd. 29/6/2010 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Chincholi, in R.A.No.49/2009 have been challenged in this appeal by the appellant-plaintiffs on the grounds as mentioned in the appeal memorandum.

(2.) The appellants-plaintiffs filed the suit before the Trial Court for partition and separate possession of their legitimate share in the suit schedule property. It is contended that defendant No.4 is the mother-in-law of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1, who are the wives of deceased Bakkappa. Plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the children of Bakkappa. Plaintiffs and defendants are the members of the joint family. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties. These properties were earlier in the name of father of Bakkappa. As plaintiff No.1 was suffering from some ailments, she was at Anantagiri in Andhra Pradesh, at that time Bakkappa married her as second wife. During the lifetime of Bakkappa as there were difference of opinion between plaintiffs and defendants they were residing separately. Earlier the defendants used to give half share in the crops to the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 without bringing to the knowledge of the plaintiffs got entered her name in the suit properties. The suit land Sy.No.96 was standing in the name of defendant No.4. There afterwards the plaintiffs asked the defendants for entering their names also to the suit schedule properties, but the same has been refused by the defendants. Hence they have filed the suit claiming their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties.

(3.) The defendants appeared in the suit and filed their written statement. Defendant Nos. 1 and 4 contended in the written statement admitting that the plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 are the wives. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 and defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are the children of deceased Bakkappa, but they denied that the plaintiffs and defendants are the members of the joint family. It is contended that when Bakkappa expired, plaintiffs have not at all attended the funeral of said Bakkappa and plaintiffs are residing in another village. It is further contended that in the family arrangement took place in the year 2003. Sy.No.96 was fallen to the share of defendant No.4 and suit schedule properties A and B properties were given to defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and Rs.1.00 lakh was given to the plaintiffs in the presence of elders and panchas and the plaintiffs relinquished their rights to the suit schedule properties in favour of the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not having any share in the suit schedule properties. There is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit. On these grounds, the defendants contested the suit.