RAMACHANDRAIAH Vs. V NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal the parties would be referred to by their rankings before trial Court.

(2.) THE I-defendant in O. S. 2980/84 has filed this appeal against the decree granting 1/3rd share to plaintiff in the suit schedule property. The inter set relationship of parties as averred in plaint which has not been disputed by defendants is as follows: <img>\program Files\regentdatatech\image\kt_311_airkarr6_2008.jpg</img> It is not in dispute that the suit schedule property was held and left by Muniyamma alias Ammanamma 1st wife of late K. Venkatappa. It is also not in dispute that muniyamma alias Ammanamma died on 11-3-1956. The plaintiff and I-defendant are sons of Venkatamma 2nd is the wife of late K. Venkatappa. II-defendant is daughter of venkatappa through his 2nd wife venkatamma. It appears Muniyamma alias ammanamma had no issues. It is not in dispute that Muniyamma died before the enactment of Hindu Succession act, 1956. Therefore, devolution of suit property held and left by deceased Muniyamma is governed by the provisions of Section 12 of mysore Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933. In the normal course, in terms of Sec. 12 of Act 1933 plaintiff and defendants 1 and 2 would be entitled to egual shares in the suit schedule property.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed suit for partition and separate possession of l/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. The I defendant resisted the suit inter alia contending that he was taken in adoption by deceased Muniyamma alias ammanamma. Thereafter he was living as an adopted son of Muniyamma alias ammanamma and he has been dealing with suit schedule property as an adopted son of muniyamma. Neither plaintiff nor II defendant is entitled to any share. It is also contended by i-defendant that suit for partition without seeking relief of declaration of title is not maintainable. The I-defendant has contended suit is barred by time. The I defendant has contended in a suit filed against one krishnabai due to mistake of Counsel for 1st defendant plaintiff herein had been arrayed as co-plaintiff in the said suit. In fact muniyamma and I-defendant had sold a property held by Muniyamma to save the suit schedule property which had been encumbered. In the circumstances, plaintiff is not entitled to any share in suit schedule property.