MELAPPA Vs. GURAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Chanbasappa Sangappa Deshmukh, a wealthy inamdar, was a resident of Kesapur in the Muddebhihal taluka of the Bijapur District, In respect of a Deshmukh Vatan which is known as "talikote Paraganna Vatan" he was owner of two entire villages of Kesapur and Hagargund. He was also owner of lands known as "chavrat lands" in 43 villages in different taluks of the district. He was also the holder of a cash allowance of Rs. 481/- which was received from different taluka treasuries. Besides these properties, he was owner of the immoveable property consisting of Goudki (Patilki) lands, Government lands, Devasthan lands, wadas, houses and open sites. Likewise, he was owner of considerable moveable property. All this property was in his possession and enjoyment until his death in 1944. Chanbasappa was a much married man, having had no fewer than six wives. He died on 8-1-1944, sonless, leaving him surviving three widows, Nagamma, Guramma and Venkamma and two widowed daughters, Shivalingamma and Neelamma, children of Chanbasappa from a predeceased wife of his. Neelamma, one of the two widowed daughters, lived with Chanbasappa. On 30-1-1944 Nagamma, the senior widow, took Melappa, her sister's son, in adoption as a son to her deceased husband. Nagamma had been married in 1926 and Chanbasappa had executed in her favour an authority to adopt, in 1927. It appears that the plaintiff i. e. Nagamma, Guramma and Venkamma lived together in the house or wada after the death of Chanbasappa. It seems that in about April or May 1944 Venkamma left Kesapur and went to Ingalgi to reside with her parents. It is the case of defendant 2 that she was pregnant when her husband died and she gave birth to a male child on 4-10-1944 and the male child is defendant 4 in the suit.

(2.) PRIOR to his death, Chanbasappa had effected certain transfers. On 4-1-1944 he executed a deed conveying to defendant 1 property comprised therein. On the same day he executed another deed in favour of defendant 2 conveying to her, property comprised in that deed. On the same day he executed in favour of defendant 6 property comprised in that document. Similar deeds were executed by him in favour of defendants 7 and 8.

(3.) ON 1-2-1944 the plaintiff applied to the Collector of Bijapur to effect mutation in favour of defendant 3. On 10-2-1944 defendant 3 made a similar application to the Collector of Bijapur. On 17-6-1944 defendant 2 made an application to the Collector, disputing the validity of defendant 3's adoption and stating that since she had been pregnant at the time of her husband's death, proceedings in the applications made by the plaintiff and defendant 3 should be stayed. On 13-7-1944 defendant 2 made another application asking that mutation should be postponed till she was delivered of a child and on 19-10-1944 defendant 2 applied to the Collector, stating that she had given birth to a male child on 4-10-1944 and that the name of the child viz. Sangappa should be mutated in the Government record. The Collector then made an enquiry and on 8-9-1946 he made an order directing that the name of Sangappa i. e. defendant 4 minor by his guardian, Venkamma should be entered as entitled to four-fifths of the partible estate and that the name of the adopted son Mellappa i. e. defendant 3 should be entered as entitled to one-fifth share of the estate. He further directed that In respect of the impartible property the name of Sangappa by his guardian mother Venkamma should be entered as entitled to it as heir.