The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 8, 12, and 13 of the Hindu Succession Act in determining the inheritance rights of cognates and the entitlement to possession of the suit property.

HULUVADI G. RAMESH, J.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal is by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Arsikere in RA 22/1997 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Munsiff, Arsikere in OS 213/1989 and dismissing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, one propositus Mallappashetty had two children by name Kotappa and Mallamma. Kotappa had a son by name Papanna who died issueless and a daughter by name gurusiddamma who had a son by name Honnappa. Mallappashetty bequeathed the property in favour of Gurusiddamma. The said Gurusiddamma pre-deceased Honappa who also died issueless. This Mallappashetty's daughter Mallamma. e. , Gurusiddamma's paternal aunt had two sons by name Veerabhadrappa and Parmeshappa. Veerabhadrappa and Parmeshappa are the plaintiffs claiming the suit property inherited by Honappa son of Gurusiddamma in whose favour the property was bequeathed by Mallappashetty.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, the defendants. e. the 1st defendant is said to have entered into an agreement of sale with Honappa in respect of the suit property which measures 3. 33 acres and the said Honappa had died issueless. It appears in turn the 1st defendant is said to have sold half share of the property to the 2nd defendant without there being a right of acquisition of title by him. According to the 1st defendant, he is said to be in possession by virtue of the sale agreement and thereafter he sold half share of the property in favour of 2nd defendant. The same has been challenged by the plaintiffs by filling a suit for declaration and possession before the munsiff, Arsikere.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court although has held that the defendants failed to prove possession by virtue of the agreement and also failed to prove adverse possession and further stating that the suit is maintainable as not barred by time, has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that as per section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, plaintiffs are not entitled for the property. Before the civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Arsikere, in appeal, while confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the same came to be dismissed. Contending that the plaintiffs are related to honnappa through his mother Gumsiddamma as cognates, this second appeal is filed by raising substantial question of law.

( 5 ) AT the time of admission, the following substantial question of law was raised - 'after the death of Honnappa whether the property devolves upon the plaintiffs under Section 8 of the Hindu succession Act'.

( 6 ) HEARD the counsel for the appellants. Although notice has been served on the respondents, none appears nor are they represented.

( 7 ) IT is the submission of the appellants' counsel that it is not Section 15 of the Hindu Succession act that applies to the case but, Section 8. Plaintiffs being related to Honnappa through his mother Gurusiddamma and Gurusiddamma's father and the plaintiffs mother are brother and sister. As such, as cognates they are entitled to succeed to the property in the absence of any class I or II heirs. It is also submitted by him that Kotappa s/o Mallappashetty although had a son by name Papanna, he also died issueless and Gurusiddamma also died and on her death, honnappa succeeded who also died issueless having not married and he entered into an agreement. Both the Courts below have held that since the defendants are not in possession of the property, they are not entitled to claim possession. Accordingly it was argued that plaintiffs being the cognates are entitled for the suit properties.

( 8 ) IT is seen the property in question - Sy. No. 99/1 measuring 3. 33 acres is situate at Agrahara village of Banavara Hobli, Arsikere Taluk. The 1st defendant claims to be the intended purchaser by way of an executed contract. The 2nd defendant is said to be the person in whose favour half of the suit property is sold based on the agreement held by the 1st defen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document