VIJAYLAXMI Vs. YANKANNA AGSAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on admission.

(2.) The judgment and decree, dated 6.6.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Sedam in O.S. No. 8/2005 and the judgment and the decree dated 11th January 2010 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Gulbarga in R.A. No. 119/2010 are called in question in this Regular Second Appeal by the appellants/plaintiffs.

(3.) The brief facts leading to filing of the suit before the Trial Court are that the defendant No. 1 is the father of the plaintiffs. One Jagadevi who is guardian of minor plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 is the wife of defendant No. 1 Defendant No. 2 is the son of defendant No. 1 through his second wife Venkatamma. Defendant No. 3 is the third wife of defendant No. 1. The suit properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. Jagadevi the first wife of defendant No. 1 filed suit against the defendant No. 1 in O.S. No. 19/1983 seeking the relief of maintenance, in which suit the defendant No. 1 and plaintiff entered into compromise and compromise decree was also drawn. Thereafter the defendant No. 1 and his wife and even the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 were living happily and there was cordial terms with them. Plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 born to defendant No. 1 from his first wife Jagadevi. Plaintiff No. 1 was married during 1986 while marriage of plaintiff No. 2 performed during the year 1998-99. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are residing in their husbands house. But since last year defendant No. 1 at the instigation of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 again started illtreatment and neglecting the plaintiffs. Still plaintiff No. 3's marriage was yet to be performed since she attained the marriageable age. But the mother of the plaintiffs has no source of income. Hence the plaintiffs and their mother requested the defendants to perform the marriage of plaintiff No. 3, but the defendant No. 1 is not showing any response. Plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 are still studying. Defendant No. 1 is avoiding his responsibility of maintaining plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5. The mother of the plaintiffs issued legal notice for making provision for maintenance of plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 and also for meeting out the marriage expenses of plaintiff No. 3, or else effecting partition in the suit schedule properties which are ancestral joint family properties. It is further pleaded that the lands bearing Sy.Nos. 319/2, 229, 49/1 and 49/6 are acquired out of income of ancestral joint family properties. These lands are purchased in the name of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The marriage of the defendant No. 3 with defendant No. 1 is illegal and void abinitio. The defendant No. 1 permanent employee of Vasavadatta cement factory, Sedam and getting monthly salary of Rs. 7,000/-. The defendant No. 1 is also getting the income from agricultural establishment. He is refusing to maintain plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5. The defendant No. 1 is not giving any share in the crop grown in the suit lands. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession and also for the relief of maintenance of plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5.