The right of inheritance and succession is a statutory right vested in terms of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act and same cannot be taken away in terms of the provisions of another statute without having an overriding effect and that the said statute must be a complete code and statute being a latter one.

1. Defendants 1 to 7 of an original civil suit bearing O.S. No.377/1996 which was pending on the file of the then Court of Munisiff, Mangalore, D.K. District, who are aggrieved by the judgment passed against them in the first appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC in R.A. 27/2001 which was pending on the file of the Court of Principal (Senior) Civil Judge, Mangalore, have filed this second appeal under Section 100 CPC. Respondents 1 to 7 herein were the plaintiffs in the said suit and appellants in R.A. 27/2001.

2. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their ranking given in the trial Court.

3. One person by name Sri Koraga Poojary was the father of plaintiffs and grand father of the defendants 2 to 7 and fatherinlaw of the first defendant. The said Koraga Poojary had one more son by name Naranappa, the husband of the first defendant and father of defendants 2 to 7. According to the plaintiffs, the said Koraga Poojary had taken the schedule agricultural lands on tenancy and was in possession of the same till his death in 1959. The tenancy, according to the plaintiffs, devolved upon the plaintiffs, Late Naranappa and their mother Thirumale Hengasu. Late Naranappa is stated to have filed an application in Form No.7 seeking occupancy rights in respect of all the eight (8) items of lands before the Land Tribunal at Mangalore as per the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amended) Act 1974 which came into effect from 01.03.1974. According to the plaintiffs, the application filed in Form No.7 by Naranappa was for and on behalf of the Joint family consisting of the plaintiffs, deceased Naranappa and their mother Thirmale Hengasu.

4. On 23.10.1979, the Land Tribunal chose to confer occupancy right in favour of Naranappa, the eldest son of Koraga Poojary. This Order of occupancy right, according to the plaintiffs, enured to the benefit of all the members of the joint family. According to the plaintiffs, Naranappa had undivided 1/7th share and the said 1/7th share has devolved upon his wife and children. In spite of several demands, the defendants did not give the plaintiffs their legitimate share and had gone even to the extent of setting up a title unto themselves on the ground that Naranappa had taken the schedule lands on tenancy in his individual capacity. Therefore, plaintiffs chose to file a suit for partition and separate possession seeking 1/7th share each.

5. Defendants have chosen to file a detailed written statement denying all the averments and have called upon the plaintiffs to strictly prove the contents of the plaint. According to the defendants, Naranappa had taken the schedule lands on tenancy (Chaalageni) from the owner Nyampally Ram Rao in his individual capacity and that this was never a tenanted land of Koraga Poojary. According to them, Naranappa had become the absolute owner of suit properties on the basis of the order of the Land Tribunal and that they have succeeded to him under Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act.

6. It is pleaded alternatively by them that even if it is accepted for arguments sake that Koraga Poojary had taken the lands on tenancy, after his death, it was cultivated by Naranappa only and that no other member in the family had contributed physically to cultivate the lands. According to them, the marriages of all the daughters of Koraga Poojary had been performed by 1959 and they were living in the houses of their respective husbands. It is further averred that plaintiff No.2 was living separately at Mangalore working as a mechanic and 4th plaintiff was working as an auditor in Bombay by 1959. Hence, they have averred that Naranappa was entitled for all protection and benefit being a cultivating tenant in terms of Section 2 (a) of the Madras Cultivating Tenants Protection Act, 1955 as amended under ordinance 1 of 1958. They have relied upon this Act since D.K. District was an integral part of Madras Presidency prior to 1.11.1956 i.e., the date of reorganisat