JUDGMENT :

These two second appeals arise from common judgment of the Fast Track Court No.V, Bangalore District in two first appeals, R.A.No.166/2002 and R.A.No.303/2002 that were filed challenging the judgment of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Anekal in O.S.No.134/1989, a suit for partition.

2. The relationship between the parties to the suit is as shown in the pedigree given below;

Chengaiah (wife - Lakshmamma)

Mangamma (Def.no.3)

(Husband-

Govindappa)

(Deft.no.1)

Yengamma

(Deft.no.5)

Sakamma

(Deft.no.4)

( Husband

-Govindappa)

i.e., D.1)

Ramakka

(Husband

-Chengaiah)

Kamalamma

(Deft.no.6)

Gowramma

(Pltf.no.2)

Chandrashekaraiah

(Deft.no.2)

Jayamma

LR D1(d)]

Munirathnam

(Pltf.no.1)

3. Defendant no.1 Govindappa is the brother of Lakshmamma and he married her (Lakshmamma’s) daughter Mangamma (defendant no.3). Since Mangamma did not conceive, he married Sakamma (defendant no.4), another daughter of Lakshmamma; but after his second marriage, the first wife, Mangamma gave birth to a son and a daughter namely Chandrasekaraiah (defendant no.2) and Jayamma, who was impleaded in the suit after the death of her father Govindappa.

4. The plaintiffs sued the defendants seeking partition in ten items of landed properties described in the plaint schedule (hereinafter referred to as ‘schedule properties’) and claimed 1/6th share each in them. The plaintiffs stated that all the schedule properties originally belonged to Lakshmamma. As she had no male issues, she was residing with defendant no.1 who was her brother as also son-in-law. The khata of the schedule properties stood in the name of Lakshmamma. Defendant no.1 took undue advantage of Lakshmamma’s helplessness, persuaded her to say no objection for transfer of khata and got the revenue records mutated to his name. The plaintiffs pleaded further that defendant no.1 did not become absolute owner of schedule properties by mere change of khata to his name; and since the properties belonged to Lakshmamma, they had equal share in them.

5. Defendants 1 to 4 filed common written statement admitting the relationship but denying the plaintiffs’ right to seek partition. They pleaded that some of the schedule properties were self acquisition of defendant no.1 and some were acquired by defendant no.2. With respect to item no.9 of the schedule properties, they contended that it was an inam land in S.M.Kittaganahalli, a Sarva Manya village and defendant no.1 was cultivating the same as a kadim tenant. Consequent upon introduction of Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 (referred to as Act for short), the said land vested in the State free of all encumbrances and thereafter the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition, granted the occupancy right to defendant no.1 reorganizing his cultivation of that land as a kadim tenant. Therefore, he became absolute owner of that land and that the plaintiffs had no right to claim partition.

6. The plaintiffs filed rejoinder to the written statement of defendants 1 to 4 stating that defendant no.1 lost his parents when he was a boy of five years. His elder sister Lakshmamma brought him up in her house. Defendant no.1 was actually looking after the properties that belonged to Lakshmamma’s husband, Chengaiah. He had no independent source of income; and source for acquisition or purchase of any property subsequently by him was the income derived from the property of Chengaiah and Lakshmamma. Defendant no.1 held all the schedule properties for and on behalf of the joint family and not in his individual capacity.

7. Defendant no.2 filed his additional written statement in the capacity of legal representative of deceased defendant no.1 putting forth a plea that his father had executed a will dated 28.02.1990 bequeathing all the schedule properties to him and therefore he became absolute owner of all the properties.

8. Jayamma, daughter of defendant no.1 who was impleaded in the suit as another legal representative, filed her written statement stating that