The central legal point established in the judgment is the correct application of S. 6 and S. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act of 1956 in determining the entitlement to a share in the estate of the deceased.

K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J.

( 1 ) AN unsuccessful plaintiff before the courts below appeals to this Court. A simple and a clear case that should have been decreed, has been dismissed by the Courts below because they disregarded the' law of pleadings, the basic concepts of Hindu law, simple rules of interpretation of statutes and the law of precedents, the result of which is lack of clarity in their judgments, which should be the hall mark of a judicial decision.

( 2 ) AT a village called Padekallu karopady, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina kannada Dist. there was a joint Hindu family consisting of one Vishnu bhatta, his wife Savitriamma and their three sons, Ganapathy Bhatta, Krishna bhatta and Narayana Bhatta, governed by the Mithakshara School of Hindu law, owning various properties. Vishnu Bhatta died on 6-4-52 and thereafter the other members continued to be joint till 15-10-1963. On 16-10-63 there was a partition among the, surviving members of the said joint family and by a registered partition deed of that date (Ex-Dl) separate shares were allotted to Savithriamma,, krishna Bhatta and the other two members. On 26-1-67 Krishna Bhatta died jnteste leaving behind him his mother Savithriamma, his wife and children and the properties allotted to his share at the partition (Ex-D1 ).

( 3 ) ON 8-10-1969 Savitriamma institututed OS No. 199 of 1969 in the court of the Munsiff Buntwal against the wife and children of Krishna Bhatta for partition and possession of her 1/36th share in the plaint schedule properties of Krishna Bhatta, for past mesne profits of rs. 300 from 23-1-1967 and future mesne profits. The plaintiff claimed that on the death of Krishna Bhatta she was one of his heirs that had succeeded to his estate under S. 8 of the, Hindu succession Act of 1956 (Central Act no. 30 of 1956) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and that she was en- titled for the share claimed by her, partition and possession and future mesne profits.

( 4 ) IN resisting the plaintiff's suit, the defendants did not dispute the plea of the plaintiff that she was the mother of Krishna Bhatta who died intestate and that he had left the properties specified in the plaint. But, still they pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to any share in the estate of krishna Bhatta. Secondly they pleaded that the partition, if ordered, would result in fragmentation and violation of the law preventing the same. Lastly, they disputed the rate of past mesne profits claimed by the-plaintiff.

( 5 ) ON the above pleadings, the learned Munsiff framed as many as six issues, the last two of which were not really necessary. The issues Iraimed by the learned Munsiff read thus: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim share in the properties allotted to her deceased son Krishna bhatta? (2) What is the correct income of the plaint. A schedule properties? (3) Whether the claim, for partition by metes and bounds is not maintainable under the Fragmentation Act? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to profits? If so, at what rate? (5) What reliefs parties are entitled to? (6) What order as to costs?both the parties did not adduce, any oral evidence but, preferred to argue their respective cases by marking a cerified copy of the partition deed dated 16-10-1963 (Ex-D1) and a, death extract of Krishna Bhatta as exhibits by consent.

( 6 ) ON hearing the arguments addressed by Counsel, the learned munsiff (Sri B. M. Hebbar) by his judgment dated 21-7-1971 upheld the plea of the defendants and consequently dismissed the suit holding that there was no need to determine the other issues. Against the, said judgment and decree of the learned munsiff, the plaintiff filed an appeal in R. A. No. 196 of 1971 before the. Civil Judge, Mangalore, Dakshina kannada. On 24-9-73 the principal civil judge, Mangalore (Sri Syed fazjulla Razvi) dismissed the said appeal and has affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff.

( 7 ) IN this second appeal filed on 8-1-74, the plaintiff has challenged

Click Here to Read the rest of this document