LADU KISHORE GOUDA Vs. PADMABATI GOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant, by filing this Appeal, under Sec. 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, 'the Code'), has assailed the judgment and decree dtd. 13/10/2005 & 16/10/2015 respectively passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Bhanjanagar in R.F.A. No.2 of 2011. The present Respondent No.1 as the Plaintiff had filed Civil Suit No.60 of 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bhanjanagar arraigning the present Appellant and Respondent No.2 & 3 as the Defendants. The suit was for partition of the properties claiming exclusive allotment of Schedule 'A' land and half share over Schedule 'B' land. The Trial Court decreed the suit by passing the following order:-

(2.) For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to, as they have been arraigned in the Suit.

(3.) Plaintiff's case is that, she is the only daughter of Magati @ Magi Gouda and Rahasa Gouda of village Kumunda. It is stated that Schedule 'A' property is the property of her parents and that stands recorded in their name in the record of right. The land in Schedule 'B' stands recorded in the name of her parents and the defendants jointly as those are their ancestral properties. The Defendant No.1 is the son of the elder brother of Magati @ Magi Gouda, the father of the Plaintiff. He and other Defendants are having no right, title and interest over the suit property in Schedule 'A' which is claimed by the Plaintiff to have been succeeded upon the death of her parents. It is stated that taking advantage of the death of Magati, the Defendant No.1 forcibly occupied the entire suit schedule property to the deprivation of the Plaintiff of her lawful and legitimate share. The Defendant No.1 also did not share the usufructs with the Plaintiffs. It is further stated that the Defendant No.1 having remained with a mood to grab the properties to Magati @ Magi Gouda and Rahasa Gouda has been forcibly enjoying the properties and despite several request from the side of the Plaintiff, his turning deaf ear to the same, has compelled the Plaintiff to file the suit. The Defendant No.1 & 2 in their written statement while traversing the plaint averments stated that Magati @ Magi Gouda and Rahasa Gouda had adopted Defendant No.1 as their son. So Defendant No.1 is the adopted son of Magati @ Magi Gouda and Rahasa Gouda and as such the brother of the Plaintiff. It is stated that on 18/12/1996, Magati @ Magi Gouda and Rahasa Gouda had executed a registered deed as regards said factum of adoption of Defendant No.1 by them.