The judgment establishes the application of Mitakshara law in determining the character of properties and the rights of the parties in a partition suit, as well as the interpretation of family trade and life insurance policy ownership.

Hedge, J.—This appeal arises from the decision of the earned Judge ( Senior Division ) at Belgagum, in Defendants 1 and 2 in that suit are the appellants in his Court. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are respondents 1 and 2 respectively and third defendant there in is the third respondent. The suit is for partion and possession of half share in the properties detailed in the plaint schedules a, b, c, and D. It has been decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved by the decree and Judgment of the Court below defendants 1 and 2 have come up in appeal to this Court .

(2) The second plaintiff is the daughter-in-law of the first defendant. Her husband Balappa, the only son of the first defendant died on 9-12-1945. She claims that she had adopted the first plaintiff to her deceased husband on 11-6-1952. The second defendant is the wife of the items of property included in the plant schedule ( City Survey No. 1295 ). Hence he has been made a party to the suit. The right of way claimed by him was recognized by the Court. Hence whenever reference is made to 'defendants' hereinafter it refers only to defendants 1 and 2.

(3) There is no dispute as regards the genealogy of the plaint family. It is as follows:

......................................................................................................................

CHANVEERAPPA (died in 1911)

___________________________________________________________

| | |

Veerabhadrappa Shudlingappa Basappa

(died in about 1887)

|

Shidramappa = Savantrewa

(Deft. 1.) (Deft. 2)

________|_____________

| |

Balappa (born = Shivagangwa

in 1918 : died

on 9-12-1945) (plaintiff 2. )

|

|

Babajappa (adopted on 11-6-1952)

.....................................................................................................................

In the court below the factum Association well as validity of the adoption of the first plaintiff was disputed but the Court came to the conclusion that the first plaintiff's adoption is both true and valued. That finding has not been challenged in this Court. Hence it necessary to go into that question.

(4) The controversies in this Court are confined that to two questions : (1) Whether all or any of the properties detailed in the plaint schedules A, B, C and D are joint family properties in which the plaintiffs can claim a share? (2) To what share the plaintiffs are entitled to under law? The Court below came to the conclusion that all the properties detailed in the plaint schedules are joint family properties, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to a half share in those properties.

(5) Most of the facts in the case are undisputed or at any rate do not admit of any serious disputed. The first defendant's father Veerabhadrappa died in about the year 1887, very soon after the birth of the first defendant. The family of Chanveerappa was more or less a poor family. The family properties were partitioned on 12-2-1900 as seen from Exhibits 79 and 80. As per that partion, the family properties were dived into four shares, one share was given to Chanveerappa, another to the first defendant, the third share to Shidlingappa and the fourth to Basappa. In the partion proceedings, the first defendant, who was about 3 years old at the time, was represented by his grandfather Chanveerappa. Under the partion in question the first defendant got Rs. 175/- and that amount was paid over to Chanveerappa. He got no other property. The first defendant as well as his mother lived with Chanveerappa till his death and they were maintained by him. He gave the first defendant a little education as well.

According to the first defendant, Chanveerappa had utilised the sum of Rs. 175/- received at the time of the partion for his (first defendant's) maintenance as well as the maintenance of his mother. Hence did not return the money in question. Chanveerappa bequeathed all his properties to the first defendant as per his will Exhibit