SHIVALINGAPPA Vs. GOURAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the stage of admission, the respondent is notified. Accordingly, she has put in appearance through a Counsel. The records are also received. As the appeal can be disposed of on the findings recorded by the trial Court and it lies in a narrow ccmpass, it is admitted and by consent of learned Counsel on both the sides, it is treated as being in the list for final hearing. Accordingly, it is heard and disposed of by this judgement. The appellant is the defendant and respondent is the plaint. In this judgment, they are referred as defendant and plaint respectively.

(2.) The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The plaintiff Smt, Gowrawwa is the widow of one Bhimappa who died on 22-1-1943. The defendant is the adopted son of Bhimappa. The plaintiff after the death of her husband took the defendant in adoption on 27-9-1944. The adoption is also evidenced by a registered deed dated 27-9-1944. Bhimappa was the owner of plaint A and B schedule properties consisting of agricultural lands and house properties. At the time when the plaintiff was married to Bhimappa, she had not attained puberty. Therefore, Bhimappa wanted to have another wife. Hence, he executed a registered deed of maintenance dated 12-1-1933 in favour of the plaintiff giving 'A' schedule properties to her for her maintenance. However Bhimappa did not take second wife. He died on 22-1- 1943. Both the parties continued to enjoy the suit properties. These facts are not in dispute and are also found by the trial Court as proved.

(3.) The trial Court has held that as 'A' Schedule properties were given to the plaintiff for her maintenance she became absolute owner of the same on the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, it has denied a share to the defendant in 'A' Schedule properties and permanently restrained him from interfering with the possession of the plaintiff, However in respect of the 'B' schedule properties it has held that both the plaintiff and the defendant are entitled to share equally. Accordingly, it has passed a preliminary decree for partition and possession of half share of the plaintiff in 'B' schedule properties.