BASETTAPPA BANGAREPPA BANGARSHETTAR Vs. IRAWWA KOM TOTAPPA PATTANSHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree dated 27th day of September, 1977, passed in 0 S No. 29/75 on the file of the Civi! Judge, Gadag. The appellant before us is the 1st defendant. In the course of this Judgment, we will refer to the parties by the ranks assigned to them in the trial Court.

(2.) The suit was one for partition brought by the plaintiff, who is respondent-1 here. The suit plea was that she was entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties belonging to her deceased father and that the 1st defendant was her step-brother and defendants 2 and 3 were her step-sisters, being the son and daughters of her deceased father through his second wife. She sought partition fay metes and bounds and separate possession.

(3.) The 1st defendant entered appearance and filed his written statement. While admitting the relationship of the defendants and the plaintiff, the 1st defendant resisted the claim on the ground that after the death of his father, on the advice of the elders, the plaintiff as well as defendants 2 and 3 agreed to execute an agreement releasing their right, title and interest in the suit schedule properties in consideration of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3 receiving moveables belonging to his deceased father in the form of gold ornaments, vessels, etc It was averred by the 1st defendant that defendants 2 and 3 executed such deeds of relinquishment, while the plaintiff, on one pretext or the other, postponed the execution and that now fraudulently had brought the suit for partition. He further averred that he had spent Rs. 10,000/- for the improvement of the suit schedule agricultural lands and, therefore, in the event of the suit being decreed, the plaintiff must be made liable to contribute her share of the expenses. As regards the quantum of share to which, according to the 1st defendant, the plaintiff was entitled, and having regard to the arguments submitted for the 1st defendant before us, we feel that it should be extracted as it was pleaded : "5) ^s&ooi^rt fc-orfi ;3?$ !o^ a&^cS S3053 5&g3KraF(3 ^e3F^do rt &>2jd) sysa 0 m o&tfrt 1/4 OTJ^ ^rio^a^. urt sao&cS? sdjirsd 1/8 ^^ Xriaa^zS." In the result, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.