K. Somashekar, J.

It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.2 is the wife of defendant No.2. Their marriage took place on 21.03.2011 in Kalmeshwar Devasthan, Unkal. The plaintiff No.1 is their son. One Hanamantagouda is the propositus of the plaintiffs and defendants. He died in the year 1994. The defendant No.1 is the wife of deceased Hanamantagouda. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons and defendant Nos.4 to 7 are the daughters of the deceased Hanamantagouda. In this regard, genealogy is given by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff No.2 has alleged that at the time of her marriage with the defendant No.2, her father had given Rs.21,000/- cash, 8 tolas gold and silver worth Rs.21,000/- and also Rs.5,000/- and 2 tolas gold at the time of Srimanth function. After the marriage, defendant No.2 has lead married life happily with the plaintiff No.2 only for few months. Thereafter, all the defendants started to harass the plaintiff No.2 physically and mentally. Thereafter, she was sent to her parental house for delivery of the plaintiff No.1. It is alleged that after delivery, the family of the defendants did not take back the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, they have not provided any maintenance to them. The defendant No.2 had totally neglected the plaintiffs, still then he had issued false legal notice in the year 2004 to the plaintiff No.2 for which she has given reply.

2. It is further stated that the suit schedule 'A' properties are fallen to the share of the deceased Hanamantagouda in a partition between himself and his brother. The plot mentioned in 'B' schedule was purchased out of the income of the joint family in the name of defendant No.2 and another land is purchased in the name of defendant No.3. The amount of Rs.44,20,000/- shown in schedule 'C' is derived by the family since family properties.

3. It is further stated that plaintiff No.2 was harassed by the defendants by demanding more dowry. In spite of the repeated request by the plaintiff No.2 to the defendant No.2, they did not stop demanding dowry. The plaintiffs have alleged that suit properties are joint family properties of both the parties. Defendant No.2 was entitled for 1/3rd share in all the suit properties, out of this plaintiffs were entitled 2/6th share jointly. The defendant Nos.4 to 7 are not entitled any share as they have taken gold, cash etc., at the time of their marriage. So they are formal parties in the suit. The plaintiff No.1 was studying, so plaintiff No.2 was not in a position to meet his expenses, as she is under mercy of her parents. Due to the ill-treatment it was difficult for the plaintiffs to enjoy the suit properties jointly. Hence, the suit has filed by the plaintiffs.

4. After service of summons, the defendant Nos.1 to 7 had appeared. The 2nd defendant filed written statement in detail. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 7 adopted the same written statement of 2nd defendant. In the written statement, the defendant No.2 denied the averments of the plaintiffs. He admitted that he had issued legal notice to the plaintiff No.2 for restitution of conjugal rights. The allegation of ill-treatment by defendants is denied and sought for dismissal of the suit, as stated in detail in their written statement.

5. Upon rival pleadings of both the plaintiffs and the defendants, issues and additional issues were framed by the Trial Court which are as under :

Issues

VERNACULAR MATTER

6. In order to establish the case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as P.W.1 and one witness was examined as P.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P-1 to P-13. On the other hand, the defendant No.2 examined as D.W.1 and two witnesses were examined as D.Ws.2 and 3 and no documents got marked on their behalf.

7. Heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendants.

8. The learned Senior Civil Judge has held the issue Nos.1 and 4 in the affirmative, issue No.2 and additional issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative, issue No.3 was deleted and additional issue No.3 was ans