MOHANA KUMARA Vs. SIDDAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S.100/1997 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Chikmagalur, have preferred this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 9.8.2003. The suit is for partition. The relationship between the parties are shown in the genealogy given as below :-

(2.) The first plaintiff Lakkamma is the second wife of the propositus namely Thimma Shetty. Before marrying Thimma Shetty, the first plaintiff had a husband by name Hucha Shetty. After the death of Hucha Shetty, Lakkamma married Thimma Shetty. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the daughters of Lakkamma through her second husband Thimma Shetty. The first defendant Lakshmana Shetty is the son of Puttamma, i.e., first wife of Thimma Shetty. Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the sons of first defendant. Defendant No.3 Paramesh Shetty died during the pendency of the suit.

(3.) The plaintiffs pleaded that after the death of Hucha Shetty, the properties situated at Bigganahalli Village that stood in the name of Hucha Shetty were mutated to the name of his younger brother Basetty @ Basava Shetty. The said Basava Shetty also died issueless. Therefore, the first plaintiff obtained katha of those properties to her name and then sold them in the year 1956 and 1958. From the proceeds of these sales, she purchased the property at Allampura Village in the name her second husband Thimma Shetty under sale deeds dated 22.9.1958 and 18.5.1959. Some of the properties were also purchased by the first plaintiff from her own income under the sale deed dated 22.4.1963. She also purchased a house property in her husband's name under the sale deed dated 22.9.1958. All these properties are described in schedules 'A' and 'B' of the plaint. The plaintiffs stated that they were all the self acquisition of Thimma Shetty. He had no ancestral property and Thimma Shetty's father Sanganna Shetty had a bit of dry land which was hardly sufficient for his living and therefore the plaintiffs stated that the schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Thimma Shetty and that they had 3/4th share in them. The first defendant had only 1/4th share. Plaintiffs demanded partition of the properties. Since the defendants did not come forward for effecting partition, they filed the suit seeking partition.