- (1.)FIRST defendant is the appellant in both these appeals. Both these appeals are filed by the 1st defendant against the common Judgment and decree dated 5. 2. 1988 passed by the Court of the Principal district Judge, Hassan, in RANos. 15/1994 and 16/1994 setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Civil Judge, arasikere, in O. S. No. 54/1987 dated 24. 9. 1988 and granting a preliminary decree in favour of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties and for recovery of possession of the said 1/4th share and also for allotment of 1/8th share in favour of the 2nd defendant. RS. A. No. 404/ 1998 is filed against the judgment and decree passed in R,a. No. 16/ 1994 challenging the allotment of 1/8th share granted in favour of the 2nd defendant by the impugned judgment. R. S. A. No. 441/1998 is filed against the judgment and decree passed in R. A. No. 15/1994 challenging the preliminary decree for partition passed in favour of the plaintiff for 1/4th share in the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession of the said share.
(2.)THE plaintiff-Gowramma, who is the 1st respondent in R. S. 4no. 441/1998 and 5th respondent in R. S. A. No. 440/1998 filed o. S. No. 54/1987, on the file of the Court of Civil Judge, Arasikere, seeking for relief of partition of the plaint schedule properties for recovery of possession of her 1/4th share in the suit properties alleging that her father late Shivananjappa, who was also the father of her sister - defendant No. 5 Basamma and father of defendants 1 to 4 late Eerappa, who were brothers and sons of late Rudraiah and were members of the joint family late Rudraiah was a native of heggatte village owning agricultural land. Later he disposed of all those agricultural lands and shifted to Jeekahanahalli village and purchased 6 acres of land situated in Sy. No. 77 in that village with the sale proceeds realised by the sale of his lands in Heggatte late rudraiah and his sons late Eerappa and late Shivananjappa were members of the joint family and after the death of Rudraiah in the year 1990 late Eerappa became the Manager of the Joint "family and he was managing the affairs of the joint family. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties and also properties acquired by the aid of the nucleus of the ancestral properties. Apart from agriculture, the members of the joint family did net possess any income during the year 1968. Shivananjappa died leaving behind him, the plaintiff and defendant No. 5 as his daughters and legal heirs. During the year 1980, Eerappa died leaving behind defendants 1 to 4 as his legal heirs. Defendant No. 1 is the first son of late eerappa and defendants-2 to 4 are his daughters by his second wife. Thus, plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule joint family properties and defendant No. 1 is Managing the joint family properties by the date of filing the suit. Since the 1st defendant refused to give the 1/4th share in the plaint schedule properties, plaintiff filed the suit
(3.)DEFENDANT No. 2 filed the written statement admitting all theplaint averments and seeking for partition and separate possession of her 1/8th share in the suit schedule properties. Defendants-1, 3 and 4 have filed a common written statement admitting the relationship between the parties and contending that late Eerappa and late Shivananjappa were not members of the joint family Late shivananjappa was living separately from Eerappa and he was carrying on the business of Coconut and Copra, They denied that the plaintiff's father Shivananjappa had any interest in the joint family property. They further contended that the plaintiff after marriage during the year 1953, has been residing in her husband's house and she is not a member of the joint family of defendants-1, 3 and 4. Defendants-1, 3 and 4 have enjoyed the suit schedule properties exclusively to the knowledge of the plaintiff for over a period of 20 years prior to the date of filing the suit. Thus, the plaintiff has been ousted from the enjoyment of the suit schedule, properties for a period of 20 years prior to the institution of the suit. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by time and the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit schedule property. They denied that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties and that they were acquired with the aid of the nucleus of the joint family properties. They have stated that late Eerappa died during the year 1978. Defendants-1, 3 and 4, therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.