S. SHANTAPPA AND ORS. Vs. CHULACHAVVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unsuccessful defendants' second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 1.4.2014 made in R.A. No. 32/2013 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ron, confirming the judgment and decree dated 5.4.2013 made in O.S. No. 92/2012 on the file of the Civil Judge, Ron, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share in the suit schedule property.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property originally belongs to Dyavappa the propositus of the family, who had four children by name Hanamavva, Shantappa, Sakrappa, Chulachavva. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and plaintiff are the sons and daughters of Dyavappa and another daughter of Hanamavva died leaving behind Dharmappa, Padiyappa Dharmappa Lokapur, Renavva, Padiyavva and Nagappa Dharmappa Lokapur. The suit schedule properties are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff is also one of the co -parcener and she is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are entitled to 1/4th share, and defendant Nos. 3 to 6 are entitled to 1/4th share. Plaintiff demanded the defendants to effect the partition, but the defendants postponed the partition on one or the other ground and subsequently refused to effect partition. Therefore, the present suit was filed.

(3.) Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 appeared through counsel. Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 6 failed to appear. They are placed ex -parte. Steps were not taken against defendant No. 5 and suit came to be dismissed against defendant No. 5. Defendant No. 1 has filed the written statement and defendant No. 4 has adopted the same written statement. The defendants denied all the plaint averments and contended that 1/4th share was more than 8 acres average market value of the suit schedule property per acre at Shantagiri which is more than Rs. 1,00,000/ - and as such the share of the plaintiff exceeds Rs. 5,00,000/ -. Therefore, the Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction and also contended that many times after the marriage of the plaintiff, she was admitted to the hospital and once she underwent an operation. The medical expenses were borne by the defendant No. 1 and the said expenses exceeds the share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties and hence the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit properties etc., and therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.