LINGANGOUDA GURANGOUDA HIREGAUDAR Vs. SANGANGOUDA BAPUGOUDA HIREGAUDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal in forma pauperis from a decree of the Joint First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar dismissing the plaintiff's suit for partition and possession of a half share in property alleged to be joint family property of plaintiff and defendants.

(2.) The relationship of the parties was a matter of contest in the trial Court, the defendants alleging that the plaintiff is not even their kinsman. But it has been held (and is not now disputed) that the parties are bhaubands descended from a common ancestor, Venkanagawda, the defendants through his first wife and the plaintiff through his second wife. There is a genealogical table given in the judgment of the trial Court.

(3.) The property in suit is valuable, consisting of patilki watan in two villages, Arshanagodi and Benkankop, the kulkarni watan in Benkankop and other lands in those and two other villages. The total area is roughly 1,000 acres producing an income of over Us. 8000 a year. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of two fields Survey Nos. 46 and 78/2 which form, or once formed, part of the patilki watan of Arshanagodi. The area of these is one and half mars which is about 32 acres. The income is about Rs. 200. This land has admittedly been in the possession of the plaintiff's branch from the time of his grandfather, Marigavda, who died in 1844 or soon after. In what capacity or by what right Marigavda acquired it is one of the matters in dispute. The plaintiff's case is that the land was given to Marigavda for maintenance (potgi) and that another one and a half mars were given as potgi to Marigavda's brother's son Ramanagavda alias Venkanagavda. The latter died without issue and his land apparently reverted to the defendants. But Marigavda's two fields have remained in possession of his descendants to this day, not, according to the plaintiff, as their separate property, but as potgi lands enjoyed by them as members of the joint family. The defendants case, on the other hand, was that Marigavda and his descendants were merely tenants of the two fields.