SARASWATHAMMA Vs. BHADRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was a certain Basegowda, who lived in the District of Chikmagalur until his death which took place in the year 1962. He had two wives, the first of them being Bhadramma, who is plaintiff 1, through whom he had a daughter Eramma, who is plaintiff 2. The second is Saraswathamma, who is defendant 1, through whom he got a son Nagesha, who is defendant 2. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by Bhadramma and her daughter Eramma for a declaration that they were exclusively entitled to all the properties of Basegowda and for an injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing their enjoyment and possession thereof. They also sought a decree for certain other reliefs to which it is not necessary to advert.

(2.) This suit was resisted by defendants 1 and 2 on the plea that each of them was entitled to a 4th share in the properties of Basegowda as his second Wife and son respectively. It was asserted by defendants that the marriage of Basegowda with defendant 1 was solemnised in March 1955 before the Hindu Marriage Act which prohibited bigamy commenced to operate on May 18, 1955. The principal ground on which the plaintiffs repudiated the right asserted by defendants was that the marriage between Basegowda and defendant 1 took place in January 1956 after the Hindu Marriage Act came into force and that it was therefore a void marriage since it was solemnised during the subsistence of the first marriage and during the life-time of plaintiff 1 who was the first wife. The Munsiff reached the conclusion that the marriage between the Basegowda and defendant 1 took place in March 1955 and was therefore a good marriage. So, he negatived the exclusive claim asserted on behalf of the plaintiffs to the properties of Basegowda and made a decree for partition. He made a declaration that the two plaintiffs were each entitled to a 4th share and that each of the two defendants were similarly entitled to a 4th share in the properties of Basegowda. He directed a partition accordingly.

(3.) From this decree, the plaintiffs appealed and the Civil Judge allowed it. He was of the opinion that the marriage of Basegowda with defendant 1 was an invalid and void marriage since, it, according to his finding was solemnised in January 1956. So, in modification of the decree made by the Munsiff, he made a decree in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for by them.