VENKATARAYAPPA Vs. RAMAKKA NARAYANAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in OS.No. 17/1992 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Chintamani, has come up in this second appeal impugning the concurrent finding of both the courts below in decreeing the suit of plaintiff for the relief of partition and in awarding l/3rd share to her in the suit schedule properties.

(2.) Brief facts leading to this second appeal are as under: Plaintiff in the original suit Ramakka is daughter of Ravanappa. The genealogy of the family discloses that Ravanappa had in all three children, namely Ramakka, Venkatamma and Venkataravanappa @ Venkatarayappa, appellant herein. Admittedly, the propositus of the joint family, namely Ravanappa is no more. He died 14 years prior to the date of filing of original suit in OS.No. 17/1992 by his eldest daughter Ramakka. At the time of filing of suit the second daughter of Ravanappa ie., Venkatamma was no more. Hence, her husband Seenappa was arrayed as legal heir of deceased Venkatamma. However, subsequently, the same is amended by removing the name of Seenappa, instead bringing the children of Seenappa and deceased Venkateshamma as defendants in the said suit, who are Narayanaswamy and Seethamma, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in original suit. While doing so, the name of Seenappa was deleted for ever.

(3.) In the original suit, after service of summons, the first defendant -Venkatarayappa, son of Ravanappa filed written statement denying the right of plaintiff to seek partition in the suit schedule properties and tried to assert that said properties are his absolute properties. In the meanwhile, original second defendant - Seenappa had already filed written statement and on insertion of the names of his children, they did not choose to alter the stand taken by their father. Hence, the written statement filed by Seenappa continued to be the written statement of defendant Nos.2 and 3, namely Narayanaswamy and Seethamma.