MODGI KRISHNA Vs. MODGI KRISHNA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal by defendants 2 to 10 in O.S. No. 20 of 1976 is from the judgment and decree of a learned single Judge in A.S. No. 441 of 1980 partly allowing the appeal by remanding the case for fresh enquiry in regard to the movable properties covered by plaint 'B' schedule and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court to the extent of the claim of the plaintiff for 1/4th share in the immovable properties covered by plaint 'A' schedule.

(2.) This case has a long history. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 20 of 1976 is the widow of one Tayappa who died intestate on 16-7-1959 surviving him his two widows -- the plaintiff and another widow, the first defendant. Defendants 2 to 9 are the sons and daughters of one Dasarath and defendant No. 10 is the widow of Dasarath, the cousin brother of Tayappa. The said Dasarath died on 9-2-1974. Alleging that Tayappa and Dasarath constituted members of a joint family owning plaint 'A, B, C & D' schedule properties and the other widow, the first defendant, abandoned her rights in respect of the plaint schedule properties, the suit was laid by the plaintiff for partition of the entire properties into two equal shares and allotment of one such share to her. In the written statement the plea, taken was that the movable properties mentioned in 'B' schedule were not in existence and 'C' and 'D' schedule properties -- wearing apparel and other items -- were the exclusive properties of the defendants.

(3.) The trial Court held that Dasarath and Tayappa were entitled to the joint family properties in two equal shares and the plaintiff, as the widow of Tayappa, was entitled to the extent of half share in the share of Tayappa and in that view, granted decree to the extent of /4th share of the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Aggrieved by that, the defendants carried the matter in appeal -- A.S. No. 441 of 1980, which as already stated supra, was allowed in part by the learned single Judge.