P JAYARAMAIAH Vs. ARAONDA MUNEMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant- plaintiff filed a suit being O.S. No. 15 of 1977, seeking a declaration that he was entitled to half share in Plaint A and B-Schedule properties by virtue of gift deeds executed by the 1st defendant. In the alternative, he sought a declaration that he was entitled to half share in the said property as Class-I heir of deceased Rajappa under Hindu Succession Act. He also sought possession of his share.

(2.) Plaintiff contended that one Ellappa had three sons; Munuswamy, Papaiah and Rajappa. Ellappa had two wives. Papaiah and Rajappa were sons of first wife whereas Munuswamy was the son of second wife. Munuswamy, the first wife's son was not being treated properly by his stepmother, therefore he separated from the family, which was a joint family till then. Ellappa and his two other sons Papaiah and Rajappa continued to live together. Plaintiff is the son of Munuswamy. Ellappa died in the year 1938. After his death, Papaiah and Rajappa continued to live as members of the joint family, possessing and enjoying the schedule properties. 2nd defendant is the daughter of Papaiah as he had no sons. His wife pre-deceased him. He died in 1951. By then, the 2nd defendant was married and was living with her husband. After the death of Papaiah, his brother Rajappa succeeded to the entire property belonging to Papaiah and Rajappa. Rajappa also died issueless on 6.5.1975, leaving behind him his widow the 1st defendant. She being the only heir to the property of Rajappa and Papaiah, succeeded to all the plaint schedule properties. 1st defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the property. 1st defendant's husband Rajappa, who died 15 years before filing of the suit, had managed the suit schedule properties.

(3.) The Defendant No.l, due to her love and affection towards the plaintiff, executed two gift deeds dated 6.2.1976 and 13.2.1976, settling her undivided half share in all the plaint schedule properties. The plaintiff was employed as Police Constable. He let out the buildings to the tenants. The 1st defendant was in possession of a portion of Item No.l of the plaint schedule. The 2nd defendant, who had absolutely no right, attempted to disturb his possession. The plaintiff issued a notice on 1.3.1976 to 2nd defendant She acknowledged the notice, but did not reply. 2nd defendant gave a notice to the plaintiff on 25,2.1976 with some false allegations. She claimed that 1st defendant was not the wife of Rajappa and she continued to be in possession of plaint schedule properties left by Rajappa and the 1st defendant was not entitled to execute any gift deeds. The plaintiff also came to know that the 2nd defendant was not entitled to execute any gift deeds. The plaintiff also came to know that the 2nd defendant created a nominal mortgage over some of the plaint schedule properties in favour of the 3rd defendant.