KANTEPPA Vs. VIMALABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the Counsel for the parties at length.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are as follows: THE parties are referred to by their rank before the Trial Court, for the sake of convenience. THE plaintiff claims to be the widow of one Gurubasappa Son of Late Gundappa Hegge. Gundappa Hegge was said to be the manager of a Hindu joint family consisting of himself and his four sons: 1) Kantappa 2) Gurubasappa 3) Ishwarappa 4) Mahadappa. After Gundappa Hegge's death, his above named sons are said to have continued as a joint family. THE genealogical tree of the family is shown as under in the plaint: As seen above, Defendant No. 5 is the daughter of Gundappa Hegge and Defendant Nos. 6 to 10 are the children of one other deceased daughter of Gundappa Hegge. 2. It was the plaintiff's case that the properties described in the suit Schedule A to E are joint family properties. It is her further case that her husband having died after suffering an illness, his brothers have, jointly and severally, misappropriated the joint family funds and have denied her claim for a share in respect of the joint family properties. It was in this background that a suit was filed for partition and separate possession of her 4/21" share in the suit properties.

(3.) DEFENDANT No. 6 also denied the status of the plaintiff as the widow of Gurubasappa and also disputed the correctness of the suit schedule and staunchly denied any right in the plaintiff to claim partition of the suit properties. The said DEFENDANT also preferred a counter-claim seeking a declaration that the plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of Gurubasappa and hence was not a member of the family.