BABU NINGAPPA Vs. ARUNKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by defendants 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 who are appellants 1 to 5 this Court. They have suffered a Judgement and Decree in O.S. No. 41/1966 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge, Belgaum. The suit was filed by the plaintiff who is respondent in this appeal seeking partition of the suit joint family properties. The plaintiff's claim was allowed with costs decreeing that the plaintiff respondent had half share in Schedules A, B, F and G properties and 3/16th share in the lands mentioned in Schedules C and D as well as for mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit till date of delivery of possession of his share in the suit properties. The plaintiff was directed to file a separate application for ascertaining the mesne profits.

(2.) In the course of this judgement, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court or convenience.

(3.) The facts leading to this appeal may be stated and they are set out in brief hereafter. The plaintiff alleged that one Rayappa was the prepositus of the said joint family. Rayappa had two sons, namely, Ningappa and Satteppa. Satteppa pre-deceased Rayappa leaving behind him his widow Chandrawwa and a daughter Laxmibai. Rayappa died in the year 1937. After Rayappa's death his sole surviving son Ningappa came in possession of the joint family properties as manager, His name was entered in the Record of Rights and Katha. Ningappa died on 10-11-1956 leaving behind him his widow Nemakka (defendant-2), a son, Babu (defendant-1- and three daughters namely, Akkawwa (defendant-3), Ratnawwa (defendant-4) and Ammawwa (Defendant-5) and a grandson-Bharatesh (Defendant-(6) the son of a pre-deceased daughter Champakka. The plaintiff further averred that the entire properties mentioned in Schedules A, B, E, F and 6/16th share in the properties mentioned in Schedules C and D to the plaint are the ancestral properties of the joint family consisting of the plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2. He further averred that all the properties except Schedule-E property are in possession of defendant-1 as the manager of the joint family. The property mentioned in Schedule-G, though purchased in the name of defendant-2 is in fact property purchased with joint family funds and therefore treated as the joint family property. That property also is in the possession of defendant-1 as the manager of the joint family. The property shown in Schedule-E was given to Chandrawwa, widow of Satteppa for her maintenance which is now in the possession of defendant-7 who is the lessee of Chandrawwa.