MUKABASAPPA BHIMAPPA Vs. HANMANTAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case two questions arise for determination: (1) whether the plaintiff's adoption is proved, and (2) whether the alienations in suit are justified by legal necessity. The facts of the case in which these questions arise are simple.

(2.) There was a Hindu undivided family consisting of Govindappa and his three sons Karehanamappa, Doddahanamappa and Sannahanamappa. On 22-6-1891, Karehanamappa separated from his two younger brothers, & at the partition which took place between them family property consisting of survey Nos. 32, 150, 151, an open site and a threshing floor and some moveables fell to his share. Doddahanamappa and Sannahanamappa continued to live jointly as before. In 1899 Karehanamappa died sonless, leaving him surviving two widows Hanamawa and Yellawa. On 12-10-1900, these two widows effected a partition of their husband's property, and at this partition Hanamawa got about a half each of survey Nos. 150 and 151, the eastern portion of the open site and the threshing floor, while Yellawa got about a half of survey No. 150 and of survey No. 151, survey No. 32 and a half of the open site and the threshing floor.

(3.) The three alienations which are challenged in this suit are these. On 6-51901, Hanamawa, the senior widow, sold the property assigned to her share at the partition of 1900 to the predecessor-in-title of defendants 10 to 15 for a consideration of Rs. 800. Then on 29-5-1901, Yellawa, the junior widow, sold a portion of survey No. 150 and survey No. 151 to the predecessor-in-title of defendants 1 to 9 for Rs. 1,379-4-3, and lastly on 11-7-1906, Yellawa sold a portion of the survey No. 151 left over, the house which appears to have been constructed on the open site and survey No. 32 to the predecessor-in-title, again, of defendants 1 to 9 for a consideration of Rs. 200.