VEERAYYA MAHANTAYYA KOPPAD Vs. GEETHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein were the plaintiffs before the trial Court in O. S. No. 101/1996 and the said suit filed by them for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule properties came to be dismissed by the trial Court and hence this first appeal by them.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs before the trial court can be indicated first by referring to the genealogical table which the plaintiffs themselves have described in their plaint and the said table is as under : <img>\program Files\regentdatatech\image\np_551_airkarr1_2008.jpg</img>

(3.) IT is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they, being the children of Muktha, are entitled to their share in the suit schedule properties because, following the death of the original propositus Somayya, only the plaintiffs and the first defendant were left behind and as the suit properties were the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the first defendant, the plaintiffs are entitled to their share in the suit schedule properties. The defendants, who are the respondents herein, contended before the trial Court that Sangavva was not the wife of the original propositus somayya and, therefore, the question of sangavva's daughter Muktha being entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties did not arise and so also the plaintiffs, being entitled to their share by stepping into the shoes of Muktha. It was the specific case of the defendants that Sangavva was not the wife of Somayya but, on the other hand, Somayya had married Shanthabai and first defendant geetha is the daughter of the said couple somayya and Shanthabai. Following the death of Sommayya, the suit properties fell into the hands of Shanthabai and later, following the death of Shanthabai, the first defendant became the owner of the suit schedule properties. During her lifetime, Shanthabai and her daughter Geetha sold one of the suit items i. e. item No. 1 (d), in favour of the second defendant. Subsequently, the above said Geetha also sold one of the suit items i. e. , item No. l (c), in favour of the third defendant. Therefore, the defendants contended that the plain. tiffs are not entitled to any share in the suit items and moreover, the suit schedule properties were the self acquired properties of Somayya.