SAKAMMA Vs. NARASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is before this Court under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure assailing the judgment and decree dated 28.10.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ramanagaram, in O.S.No.192/1998 by which, the suit of the plaintiff for declaration and injunction was dismissed.

(2.) The appellant is plaintiff and respondents are defendants before the trial Court and in this proceeding they would be referred to as they stand before the trial Court.

(3.) The plaintiff - Sakamma filed suit for declaration and perpetual injunction against the defendants in respect of schedule 'A' and schedule 'B' properties. Whereas schedule 'A' consisted of four items and schedule 'B' consisted of eleven items of properties. Plaintiff claims that she is the daughter of Munigiraiah and Rangamma. She was married to one Ningaiah, who was the son of Munieramma sister of Munigiraiah. Plaintiff was second wife of Ningaiah. Munigiraiah father of the plaintiff had no male issues. After the death of Munigiraiah his wife Rangamma was looking after the family affairs. Rangamma married her daughter Sakkamma to Ningaiah in the year 1948. After their marriage, as there was no male member in the family of Rangamma, Ningaiah started to live with the plaintiff and was looking after agricultural operations and was managing the family of Rangamma. It is stated that Ningaiah - the husband of the plaintiff had come to the house of Rangamma as "Mane Aliya" (Son-in- law staying in his father-in-law's house). It is further stated that Ningaiah lived as such, till his death in the year 1998. As Ningaiah and plaintiff were looking after Rangamma, the mother of the plaintiff, Rangamma executed gift deed dated 06.07.1949 in favour of plaintiff and her husband Ningaiah in respect of plaint schedule 'A' properties. The gift deed was acted upon which is a registered document. Thereafter it is stated that Ningaiah husband of the plaintiff did not go to his parental house. It is also stated that Ningaiah, the husband of the plaintiff did not take any share from his ancestral property. Ningaiah was illiterate and he was an agriculturist. It is the further case of the plaintiff that Ningaiah during his lifetime had no independent status of his own and had no independent income. It is also stated that Munigiraiah the father of the plaintiff had left live stock such as 100 goats, 75 sheep, milking cows and buffaloes.