S.V. RAMAMURTHY Vs. SINGU R. MANGALESHKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been filed by the first defendant seeking for rejection of the plaint filed by the plaintiff in CS.No.390 of 2020. The applicant/first defendant is the father and the first respondent/plaintiff and the second respondent/second defendant are his sons.

(2.) The suit was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff seeking for partition of the properties owned by his late mother Padmavathy. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, the suit A schedule property was purchased by his mother, out of her self acquired funds and suit B, C & D schedule properties were inherited from her ancestors and therefore, they are ancestral properties. The first respondent/plaintiff has claimed 1/3rd share in the suit A schedule property and 1/2 share in the suit B, C & D schedule properties. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, being a self acquired property of his mother, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 are having equal shares and each entitled for 1/3rd share. However, according to the first respondent/plaintiff, insofar as the suit B, C and D schedule properties are concerned, having inherited the same by his late mother Padmavathy from her ancestors, the applicant/first defendant being the husband of his late mother Padmavathy is not entitled for any share in those properties as per the provisions of sec. 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956.

(3.) However, it is the contention of the applicant/first defendant that sec. 15(2) of the Hindu Succession Act gets attracted only when his wife late Padmavathy died without any issues. But since the plaintiff and the second defendant are her issues born out of the wedlock with the applicant/first defendant, the applicant/first defendant is also entitled for 1/3 rd share in the suit B, C & D schedule properties also, as in the case of suit A schedule property. The applicant/first defendant has made several allegations against the first respondent/plaintiff and submitted that the first respondent/plaintiff never took care of the applicant/first defendant and his wife the deceased Padmavathy who is the mother of the plaintiff.