Ganganagouda and Others vs Shankaragoud and Others

S. Sujatha, J.—This is the defendants second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of half share in the joint family properties, which have been shown in the suit schedule properties. In the said suit schedule properties some properties are located at Chilakamukki village and some are located at Bevoor village. The defendants resisted the suit denying the plaint averments. After considering the material evidence on record the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for, against which the defendants preferred appeal before the lower appellate Court and the same was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The said judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is impugned in this second appeal.

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that there was a partition in the year 1982 between the original plaintiff and defendants. Secondly, it is contended that Bevoor properties are the joint family properties and a partition was effected and a wardi was given to the village accountant and as per the said wardi the mutation entries were changed allotting shares in favour of the original plaintiffs and defendants. Thirdly, it is contended that some properties of Chilakamukki i.e., Sy. No. 51 was purchased by Sri Buddanagouda, the father of the original defendants and the other properties in Chilakamukki village were the stridhana properties of the mother of the original plaintiff and the defendants father. The plaintiff had relinquished the rights on these Chilakamukki properties through a relinquishment deed and subsequent to the said relinquishment, mutation entries were changed. The Exs. D.1 to D.7 produced before the trial Court coupled with the oral evidence of the parties prove that the plaintiff was not entitled to half share in all the suit properties as prayed for. The Courts below without appreciating the documentary as well as oral evidence decreed the suit.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents supports the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and argued that the properties of Chilakamukki village was the stridhana property of Ningavva, the mother of the plaintiff and father of the defendants and after the death of Smt. Ningavva, Shankargouda along with the defendants inherited to the half share in Sy. No. 51 of Chilakamukki village as well as the other properties in Chilakamukki village which were the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants father. The properties at Bevoor village were also the joint family properties and the mutation entry relied upon by the appellants herein do not confer any right or title to the properties and do not prove the partition that has effected between the parties, denying the earlier partition.

After hearing the parties and perusing the records, I have given my anxious consideration to the documents Exs. D.1 to D.7 relied on by the appellants to establish that partition was effected earlier in the year 1982 with respect to Bevoor properties. Ex. D.7 is the entry in the mutation register to which learned counsel more particularly invited my attention to demonstrate that there was already a partition effected in the year 1982 between the parties. Ex. D.7 would not establish the partition in the year 1982, since mutation entry is changed only on a wardi given by the appellants herein to which the plaintiff was not a party and moreover an entry in the mutation register does not confer title or prove the partition between the parties.

Some properties in Chilakamukki village were stridhana property of Smt. Ningavva and subsequent to her demise, plaintiff had executed the relinquishment deed is also of not worthy of acceptance in the absence of any such relinquishment deed being produced before the Court. No supporting evidence is placed by the appellants to show that Sy. No. 51 of Chilakamukki village was the self acquired property of the father of the defendants, except the mere, self interested testimony of the appellants.

The learned counsel for the appellants relying on these documents vehemently argued that the Courts below have not appreciated the material evidence, more particularly documentary evidence in the right perspective and has wrongly decreed the suit cannot be accepted in view of the elaborate analysis made by the Courts below considering all the documentary and oral evidence available on record, the Courts below have come to a right conclusion that there was no earlier partition between the plaintiff and the father of the defendants as set out by the defendants nor the properties in Chilakamukki village was self acquired property of the defendants father. All these properties were the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and father of defendants and accordingly, the Courts below have held that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit properties and decreed the suit which cannot be found fault with.

No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this second appeal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.