( 1 ) THIS is defendants' second appeal. The respondents were plaintiffs in the suit. The suit was one for partition and separate possession of their share in the plaint schedule properties.

( 2 ) THE plaint schedule properties consist of both immovables and movables described respectively in schedules A and B. The defendants while admitting the relationship between the parties contended inter alia that in the properties in question the plaintiffs have no share as the same were the self acquisitions of Venkataswamy, husband of the first defendant and father of the other defendants.

( 3 ) THE Trial court dismissed the suit. But the first appellate court allowing the appeal has decreed the claim. In order to better understand the rival contentions raised in the appeal we may know the genealogical tree. THIPPANNA (died a long time ago) venkataramanappa (1968) = Lingamma (Plaintiff-1) venkataswamy (died in 1966) venkatamma (Plaintiff-2)= Venkatalakshmma (Defendant-1) narayana Parvathamma (Deft. 2) (Deft. 3) rukkamma Deft. 4 Kanthamma (Deft. 5)

( 4 ) AS is clear there from first defendant's husband Venkataswamy and the second plaintiff Venkatamma were the son and daughter respectively of the first plaintiff Lingamma and her husband Venkataramanappa. Venkataswamy pre-deceased Venkataramanappa.

( 5 ) IT is not in dispute that during the life-time of Venkataswamy he and his father venkataramanappa constituted an undivided hindu Family.

( 6 ) THE first appellate court proceeded on the basis that all the plaint schedule properties were the properties of that undivided Hindu joint Family. The Court envisaged a notional partition, quantified the shares and has come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 were together entitled to 5/12 share in the properties.

( 7 ) CHALLENGING the judgement of the first appellate court the learned counsel for the appellant submitted; i) that the appellate court had erred in holding that the movables were the movables of the joint hindu family without any basis therefore (ii) that it had also erred in holding that all the immovable properties were the properties of the said family (iii) and that even otherwise it had also not properly quantified the shares to which the parties were entitled to. He also made another submission. During the pendency of the appeal first the plaintiff sold her share in favour of her daughter, the second plaintiff, under a registered sale deed. According to the learned counsel, this sale is void under Section 22 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 (the Act) being in violation of the mandatory requirements of that provision. He submits that this fact has to be taken note of by the court in this appeal and the shares will have to be readjusted amongst the parties It is his case that if that transaction or sale is held illegal and not binding on his client, defendants 2 to 5 would also be entitled to their shares, under section 15 (a) of the Act in the estate left behind by the first plaintiff who admittedly is since dead.

( 8 ) RESPONDING to this submission and while supporting the judgement of the first appellate court the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that court had not committed any error in the matter of quantification of shares; that Sec. 22 of the Act was not at all attracted to the facts of the case; that even otherwise Sec. 22 does not apply to the proposed transfers of agricultural lands at all; and that the finding of the lower appellate court that his clients were entitled to their shares both in the movables and immovables is based on proper assessment of the law and facts and, therefore, no interference in the judgement of the court below is called for in this appeal.

( 9 ) WHILE submitting that the court below had committed an error in treating all the plaint schedule immovable properties as joint family properties what was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants was that the plaint items-4, 5 and 8 which had been purchased by venkataswa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document