( 1 ) THIS appeal by the first defendant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Belgaum, in R. A. No. 21/99, dated 17-6-2003, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned i Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Belgaum, in O. S. No. 76/1987, dated 6-4-1999, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in part for partition and separate possession of their half share in the Schedule I-A and Sched- ule-II properties.

( 2 ) THE essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows :- the plaintiffs filed a suit O. S. No. 76/87 seeking for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. Schedule i consists of two portions, Schedule I-A comprises of 4 items of agricultural lands and schedule 1-B comprises of tenanted lands and Schedule II consists of three household properties and two open sites as described in the Schedule. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Nagappa, the propositor of the family had three sons viz. , Kallappa, Rama (defendant No. 1) and Mallappa. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons and plaintiff 4 is the wife of Mallappa. It is averred that Nagappa died about 50 to 60 years next before filing of the suit. Kallappa was given in adoption to one Nagawwa, W/o. Omya Mahar in the year 1923. Mallappa died on 8-12-1960 leaving behind the plaintiffs i. e. , his sons and wife as his heirs. It is averred that after the death of Mallappa, all the plaintiffs were maintained and looked-after by Ramappa (first defendant) and they have lived as members of an Undivided Hindu Family. The family was all along residing at Bambarage. Therefore, Ramappa thought that it was inconvenient to cultivate and look-after the family lands at Kadoli and therefore, he disposed of three family lands bearing R. S. Nos. 513/18, 113/19 and 192 in between 1966 and 1970 and out of the sale proceeds, he purchased R. S. No. 113/2 at Bambarge which is Item No. 1 in Schedule 1a of the Schedule to the plaint. After purchase of the said land, it was all along treated and wahivated as joint family property and also blended with the other family properties at bambarge, bearing R. S. Nos. 106/2, 106/3 and 72 described at SI. Nos. 2, 3 and 4 of schedule 1a to the plaint. The lands described in Schedule IB are the tenanted lands and these lands have been cultivated by the family of the plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 during the life time of Nagappa. These lands were all along treated and wahiwated as family tenanted lands. It is averred that the first defendant is a shrewd and a cunning man. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, are illiterates and gullible persons. The plaintiffs had full trust and faith in Ramappa and acted at his behest by lending their signatures to the documents as desired by him. Defendant No. 1 tried to create dissension and rift between the plaintiffs inter se and the name of Nagappa continued to appear as Kabjedar in the record of rights to the family lands bearing R. S. Nos. 72, 106/2 and 106/3 though Nagappa had died long back. Defendant No. 1 purported to give wardi to the Village Officer, Bambarge on or about 24-8-1984 for entering his name and the name of the second plaintiff in the kabjedar's column and the said wardi was duly mutated at Mutation Entry No. 1192 and certified on 30-9-1984. Subsequently, defendant No. 1 seems to have entered the name of Nagappa i. e. , plaintiff No. 1 to one of the household properties and he played mischief and filed only one application regarding R. S. No. 157/47 described at S;. No. 3 of Para I-B of the schedule in the name of nagappa and filed another application for occupancy rights regarding the other lands described in Schedule I-B in his name. Since the dispute arose among the parties and defendant No. 1 started appropriating the entire landed income for himself without even providing for the bare neces

Click Here to Read the rest of this document