MAHADEVAMMA Vs. JAVARAMMA GUNDAMMA DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/defendant has come up with this appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional city Civil Judge, Bangalore in O. S. No. 3634/1984 dated 25. 7. 2092 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition, possession and mesne profits.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their rankings before the Trial Court.

(3.) THE brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs have filed the suit against the defendant for partition of their 7/8th share in the suit schedule property bearing No. 2 (New No. 27), I Main Road, Kalabhairavaswamy temple Street, Mysore Road, Bangalore and also sought for mesne profits. The case of the plaintiffs is that first plaintiff is the wife and plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the children of late B. Andanappa @ Buddu; that the said B. Andanappa died on 14. 5. 1973 as a member of Hindu joint family leaving behind the plaintiffs and one Smt. Madamma his mother and Smt. Gowramma - his sister; that the said Gowramma died on 14. 3. 1975, that smt. Madamma is also no more, thus the plaintiffs have succeeded to the entire estate left behind by late B. Andanappa. That the suit schedule property is a portion of property purchased under a registered sale deed dated 18. 5. 1962 and it belongs to the joint family of B. Andanappa and his children. The property measured 15' x 45' out of which 71/2each was given to one Chennappa and another extent of 71/2' each was given to one narayana. The remaining extent is the suit schedule property. That the suit schedule property is in occupation of tenants and the first plaintiff was collecting the rents previously. The defendant is in occupation of major portion of suit schedule property and a small portion is let out to tenant and now the defendant is collecting rent. The defendant is the daughter of elder sister of late B. Andanappa and she is married to one Puttamadaiah and lived with him for some time and later, left him and came to Bangalore during 1972. She came and pleaded for temporary accommodation. Accordingly, late B. Andanappa permitted her to live temporarily in a portion of suit schedule premises. Thereafter defendant went on pleading time to vacate the schedule premises on the pretext that she had been trying for alternate accommodation. In the meanwhile, B. Andanappa died on 14. 5. 1973; thereafter plaintiffs demanded defendant to vacate the suit schedule property and to handover vacant possession which was in her occupation. But defendant pleaded sometime, however, during 1974 she refused to vacate the premises by denying the title of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiffs got issued the legal notice dated 4. 12. 1974 to the defendant to vacate and deliver possession of the premises in her occupation. The notice sent by RPAD returned. The notice sent under certificate of posting was duly served. Inspite of that, defendant failed to comply with the demands made in the notice nor sent any reply. Hence, they filed a suit o. S. 95 of 1975 which was later renumbered as 966 of 1980 seeking for the relief of declaration, possession and mesne profits against the defendant. However, ultimately, the said suit came to be dismissed with an observation that the plaintiffs can seek for partition of suit schedule property and obtain possession with respect to their share. The contentions of defendant No. 1 in the said are negatived. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit before the Trial Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.