Point of Law: Personal and Family laws – Partition - The self-acquired property of a Hindu father which his sons who were joint with him get on his death is in their hands joint family property. As between the sons and their descendants, it is subject to all the incidents of a coparcenary.

JUDGMENT :

R.DEVDAS J.,

A divided son, whether would be entitled to seek a share in the father’s property or whether only the undivided would succeed to such property is the question that seeks consideration in these Regular First Appeals.

2. The undisputed facts are that on 27.04.1971 Channabasayya was adopted by Parameshwarayya with due ceremonies. During the year 1976, Channabasayya filed O.S.No.38/1976 seeking declaration that he is the adopted son of Parameshwarayya and his two wives, Annapurnavva and Parvatevva and further sought for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the ancestral properties. The parties to the suit filed a compromise petition and as per the compromise petition, the relationship between the parties was admitted, more particularly, that Parameshwarayya had two wives and since no issues were born out of the wedlock, they adopted Channabasayya on 27.04.1971 with due ceremonies. Further, during May, 1971, the parties had entered into an oral partition and as per the said partition, the properties were divided and allotted. The suit was accordingly decreed by -dividing the joint family properties of Parameshwarayya into two. Five items of agricultural properties and a house situated in Havanur village panchayath limits bearing No.668 were allotted to the share of Channabasayya. The rest of the properties were retained by Parameshwarayya and his two wives as their joint share. Parameshwarayya died on

Sd/- Corrected vide Court

RDJ order dated 23.07.2021

14.10.1991. Thereafter, Parvatevva filed the instant suit in O.S.No.126/2006 against Annapurnavva claiming partition and separate possession in the suit schedule properties which are the properties that remained with Parameshwarayya and his two wives as per the compromise decree in O.S.No.38/1976. During the course of the suit proceedings, Channabasayya and one Halamma, i.e., the 3rd respondent herein filed an impleading application and came on record while Channabasayya contended that being the only son of Parameshwarayya, he too is entitled for a share, Halamma contended that she is the naturally born daughter of Parameshwarayya and Parvatevva.

3. In the written statement filed by Annapurnavva, she claimed to be the first wife of Parameshwarayya and on the other hand, Parvatevva also claimed to be the first wife and that Halamma, was born out of the wedlock between Parvatevva and Parameshwarayya. In the matter of establishing the paternity of Halamma, documentary evidence such as birth certificate issued by the Birth and Death Register on 04.03.2006 at Ex.D.16, SSLC marks card Ex.D.17 and

Sd/- Corrected vide Court

RDJ order dated 23.07.2021

ration card at Ex.D.18 were produced and marked before the Court. However, Channabasayya, on his part had produced copies of the judgment in O.S.No.76/1994 along with copy of the deposition of Parvatevva to the effect that since no child was born out of the wedlock of Parameshwarayya and Parvatevva, she brought one orphan girl from Guttal police station and they treated the girl as their daughter. The trial Court, therefore, proceeded to reject the contention of Halamma and Parvatevva that Hallamma was the naturally born daughter of Parameshwarayya and Parvatevva. All the additional issues raised consequent to the written statement filed by Halamma have been answered against Halamma.

4. While answering additional issue No.4 – whether the 2nd defendant Channabasayya proves that he has half share in the suit schedule properties as pleaded in his written statement, the trial Court has come to a conclusion that Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.6 which are sale deeds executed by Parvatevva and Annapurnavva in favour of various persons, go to show that after the death of Parameshwarayya, Parvatevva and Annapurnavva continued to be in joint possession of the suit schedule properties and Channabasayya has not produced any document in proof of his possession of the suit schedule properties. The trial Court has also gone to the extent of