SANJEEVA BHANDARY Vs. SHIVARAM BHANDARY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is the 1st defendant's regular first appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition, granting 1/4th share in the suit schedule property, to the plaintiffs.

(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

(3.) ONE Kookra Bhandary is the propositor. He has four children; two daughters and two sons. Smt. Koosu Bhandarthy and Smt. Kollu Bhandary are the daughters. Sanjeeva Bhandary and Babu Bhandary are the sons. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the children of late Koosu Bhandarthy and 5th plaintiff is the son of Vanaja Bhandary, daughter of Koosu Bhandarthy, who is no more. Koosu Bhandarthy died leaving behind the plaintiffs as her successors. The schedule property was enjoyed by Kookra Bhandary as an agricultural tenant. On coming into force of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, Kookra Bhandari filed declaration in Form No. 7 claiming occupancy right over the suit schedule properties. The Land Tribunal, Mangalore after holding an enquiry passed an order dated 10.02.1977 in LRT No. 368 and 375/75 -76 granting occupancy rights in favour of Kookra Bhandary. In this regard, Form No. 10 is also issued on 05.06.1997. Kookra Bhandari died intestate on 23.07.1979 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants as his legal heirs. The wife of Kookra Bhandary by name Durgi pre -deceased him. On the death of Kookra Bhandary, the plaintiffs and defendants being the only legal heirs have succeeded to his estate and all of them have got equal rights. In other words, plaintiffs have together inherited 1/4th undivided right, title and interest in the plaint schedule properties. The predecessors of the plaintiff Smt. Koosu Bhandarthy got issued a legal notice dated 15.07.2005 to the defendants calling upon them to divide the properties and to give her legitimate share. The 1st defendant sent a reply denying her claim and he had set up a Will and put forth a false claim on the basis of the said Will. In the meanwhile, Koosu Bhandarthy died intestate. Subsequently, the 1st defendant approached the plaintiffs and offered to settle the matter by dividing the property into four equal shares. The property was also surveyed by the surveyor and was divided into four shares. After all these preliminary works, defendant backed out from the offer of settlement. Defendants 2 and 3 have colluded with the 1st defendant and have conspired and colluded together to defeat the legal rights of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the suit is filed for partition of plaintiffs' 1/4th share in the plaint schedule properties.