CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS R. F. A. is directed against the Judgment and Decree dt. 30-6-92 in O. S. No. 3879/84 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said City Civil Judge had dismissed the suit of the appellants.

( 2 ) I heard the learned Counsel for the appellants Sri. Ilyas Hussain and Sri Anand appearing for M/s. Rego and Rego for the respondent No. 1. Respondents No. 2 to 4 are served with notice but they remained absent.

( 3 ) THE facts in brief of the case are as follows :the appellants herein had originally filed O. S. No. 3879/84 on the file of the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore (hereinafter for convenience referred to as the City Civil Judge), for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule 'a' movable properties and suit schedule 'b' immovable property. In the plaint of the appellants the suit schedule 'a' movable and suit schedule 'b' immovable properties are described as follows :"schedule - 'a'movables1. Wooden and Iron Furniture worth about Rs. 2000/ -. Teak wood boxes containing antique utensils worth about Rs. 5000/ -. Bank account in the State Bank of Mysore, Branch Lady Curzon Road, Bangalore to be ascertained from the Bank autthorities. ""schedule - 'b'immovablesall that the piece and parcel of land and building Corporation old No. 11, New No. 20, Victoria Road, Civil Station, Bangalore, situated behind two properties facing Victoria Road, bounded to the North by passage 10 feet wide, to be provided leading to old No. 11/2, New No. 22, Victoria Road, on the South by old No. 11/1, New No. 21, Victoria Road, on the East by 30 feet approach road, leading to Victoria Road, and on the West by premises No. 11/2, New No. 22, Victoria Road, measuring 85 feet on the east and 85 feet in the west and 90 feet in the north and about 85 feet in the south. Building is about 60 years. old and in dilapidated condition. "

( 4 ) THE appellants' case is that the original plaintiff No. 1 (since dead) the father of the appellants Nos. 2 to 5 herein are the sons and daughters of one Amatus Samad, the eldest sister of the respondent No. 1 herein and the said Amatus Samad died on 19-11-82. That the original plaintiff No. 1 and the appellants Nos. 2 to 5 are the only heirs and successors of the said Amatus Samad. The said Amatus Samad and one Amathual Hadi and one Abdul Aleem were the true sisters and true brother and they were the daughters and son of late Mohammad Isahaq Saheb form his second wife. That Amathul Hadi with whom the respondent No. 1 herein lived remained in exclusive possession of the said property till her death on 23-12-80 at Bangalore. That Amathul Hadi was a spinster during her lifetime and she had no issues. That at the time of her death, the wife of the original plaintiff No. 1 before the learned City Civil Judge (since dead and represented by appellants 2 to 5 herein) by name Smt. Amatus Samad and the appellants Nos. 2 to 4 herein being the sons of late Abdul Aleem, the predeceased true brother of Amathul Hadi were alive to succeed to her properties as heirs and successors as per Mohammedan law of Inheritance.

( 5 ) THAT the Respondent No. 1 is the daughter of one Mariam Bi who died in the year 1940 and as such predeceased her sister the above said Amathul Hadi. That Amathul Hadi left movables and immovable properties at the time of her death more fully shown above. The appellants claim in their plaint that the above said properties both movables and immovable are the joint properties of themselves and their father (since dead) and further of the respondents Nos. 2 to 4. According to them, with the demise of Amathul Hadi in the year 1980, her surviving sister, Amatus Samad, the mother of the appellants who died in the year 1982 succeeded to one half of the properties. Hence, according to them, the father of the appellantts and the appellants herein were entitled to for one half of the share in the suit schedule 'a' and 'b' properties. They further averred

Click Here to Read the rest of this document