K. R. PRASADA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of the learned Second Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, in R. A. No. 41 of 1991, dated 13-3-1995 dismissing the said appeal and confirming the. ludgment of the Trial Court dated 13-2-1991 in O. S. No. 75 of 1986.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, I shall refer the parties as arrayed in the Trial Court.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff filed the suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties and for recovery of possession of her l/4th share alleging that she is the second wife of one Pillareddy and defendants 2 and 3 are her daughters. First defendant is the son of Pillareddy by the first wife late thimmakka. During the lifetime of Pillareddy, a partition took place between himself and the 1st-defendant under a registered partition deed dated 15-6-1972 and in the said partition the plaint schedule properties fell to the share of Pillareddy. Pillareddy died in or about the year 1980 and after his death plaintiff and defendants inherited the said properties as his legal heirs. Plaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule lands, which are ancestral and joint family properties of Pillareddy. Plaintiff further alleged that in spite of several demands made, first defendant has evaded to effect a partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties, she, therefore, filed the suit in the Trial Court for the relief of partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties.

( 4 ) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3, who are the daughters of the plaintiff, have filed their written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff and seeking for recovery of possession of 1/4th share belonging to each of them in the suit schedule lands expressing their readiness to pay necessary court fee in respect of their shares.

( 5 ) DEFENDANT 1 filed his separate written statement, where in he admitted the relationship of plaintiff as the 2nd wife of his father-Pillareddy and of defendants 2 and 3 as the daughters of Pillareddy by his second wife, who is the plaintiff. He also admitted the fact that a partition took place between himself and his father Pillareddy under a registered partition deed dated 15-6-1972 and that the plaint schedule properties fell to the share of his father Pillareddy. According to him, his father Pillareddy died on 7-6-1981. He denied that after the death of his father, plaintiff, himself and defendants inherited the plaint schedule properties as alleged by the plaintiff. On the other hand, according to him, his father Pillareddy bequeathed the suit schedule Items 1 to 9,14, 15, 17 and 18 under a registered Will dated 30-10-1972 in favour of the grandsons (his sons) Thimma Reddy, Keshava Reddy and Ramesh reddy and he bequeathed the remaining Items 10,11,12,13 and 16 also in favour of the same grandsons under an unregistered Will dated 10-12-1979 during his lifetime. Consequently the said legatees have become the owners in possession and enjoyment of the said items of plaint schedule properties. He further contended that Items 14 and 15 of the plaint schedule properties have been tenanted lands which were in possession and enjoyment of M. Annaiahreddy of Kathraguppa Village under h. Pillareddy and consequently the said M. Annaiahreddy has been registered as an occupant of the said lands under the provisions of the karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, though the said lands are the subject-matter of the registered Will dated 30-10-1972. He further contended that in respect of Item 12 of the plaint schedule, defendant 2 claimed occupancy rights alleging that she is the tenant of the said land under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and her claim in this regard has been rejected. He also denied that the plaintiff is in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule land and contended that the plaintiff has never been in possession of the suit schedule propert

Click Here to Read the rest of this document