RAVEENDRA Vs. CHANDRAVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kasaragod in O.S.No.28 of 1997. Plaintiff in the appeal is the sister of the predecessors of defendants 1 to 10. Admittedly, the properties belonged to Ramoji. His wife was Chennamma. They had four children, namely, Haloji, Maloji, Durgoji and the plaintiff, Chandravathi. Wife of Haloji, by name Rukmini, is the 1 st defendant and his daughter, Bhavani is the 2nd defendant in the suit. Maloji's wife and children are defendants 3 to 7. Durgoji's wife and children are defendants 8 to 10. According to the plaint averments, plaint A schedule properties belonged to deceased Ramoji as self acquired properties. Plaint would proceed on the basis that Haloji died somewhere in 1937. He had predeceased his father. After the death of Ramoji, plaint A schedule properties devolved on the plaintiff, defendants 1 to 10 and plaintiff's mother Chennamma. Chennamma died in the year 1970. Her rights also devolved on the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 10. According to the plaintiff's case, she is entitled to get ¼ share in the plaint A schedule properties. Defendants 1 and 2 together are entitled to ¼th right, defendants 3 to 7 are entitled to ¼th right and defendants 8 to 10 are entitled to remaining ¼ th right over the properties. It is the contention that the defendants are not sharing profits and therefore the plaintiff wanted to divide the property by metes and bounds.

(2.) Defendants 1 to 3 supported the plaintiff's claim. 6 th defendant filed a written statement contending that Ramoji died on 25.12.1938. It is seen that the male children of Ramoji had filed O.S.No.7 of 1995 before the same court and the decree therein has become final. It is therefore contended by the defendants that the plaintiff has no right over the property. 8 th defendant contended that the plaintiff is not a heir of her father under the law then prevailed among the members of the community to which the parties belong. Chennamma, widow of Ramoji, did not inherit any right from her husband. On the death of Ramoji, the property devolved by survivorship on the joint family consisting of her three sons. Haloji and Ramoji died long before on 1.12.1976. Durgoji died in 1983. If at all the plaintiff had any right, the same has been lost by ouster, adverse possession and limitation.

(3.) The court below framed the following issues: