A VENKAPPA BHATTA Vs. GANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendants 1, and 6 to 15 is directed against the judgment of the court below in a suit for partition. The parties are Havik Bramhins governed by the Hindu Mithakshara Law of inheritance. Their common ancestor Venkateshwara Bhatta had four sons, Shankaranarayana Bhatta alias Sankanna, husband of the plaintiff, Dl, D2 and the husband of D15. The joint family divided itself into branches on 16-9-49 under Ext. B20. By this the plaintiffs husband and defendants separated from other branches and plaint A scheduled properties were allotted to this branch. B scheduled properties are said to be later acquisitions. Sankaranarayan Bhatta died on 1-7-1947. He had no sons, but only two daughters through the plaintiff. By reason of the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, as adopted by Madras Act 26/1947, the plaintiff claimed a widow's estate, which later ripened into an absolute estate, under S.14 of the Hindu Succession Act. The first defendant is the kirtha of the joint family. Defendants 3 to 5 are the sons of 2nd defendant. D15 is the widow of another brother and D6 to D14 are his children. The plaintiff claimed partition of 1/4th share of the estate, and share of profits. Defendants 1 to 6 created a sham partition deed Ext. B1 dt. 26-12-1970, she says. Her signature was obtained on it, persuading her to think that it was document intended to avoid tax. Ext. B1 was registered at Puthur in Karnataka State and amounts to a fraud on registration and therefore cannot be treated as evidence of partition. The allotment of shares under Ext. B1 is also unequal and unjust. She also avers that B schedule property does not belong to the family.

(2.) The first defendant repudiated the claims of the plaintiff. According to him, Shankaranarayana Bhatta died long before Madras Act 26 of 1947 came into force, and therefore the plaintiff had no heritable right. He does not say when. Ext. B1 is a genuine document, the plaintiff was willing party to it, and B schedule also are family properties, according to him. He disputed all the averments of the plaintiff.

(3.) Defendants 2 to 5 would also contend that Shankaranarayana Bhatta died long before Madras Act 26/1947 came into force. They too, like the first defendant, would not say when. According to them, two suits are pending against the family, and they dispute joint possession of plaintiff after Shankaranarayana Bhatta's demise. The suit, they say, was inspired by the plaintiffs son inlaw. Defendants 6 to 15 would aver that there was only a maintenance arrangement in favour of the plaintiff, and after her death the properties set apart for her maintenance, were to devolve on her daughters. For the rest, they endorsed the contentions of other defendants.