Point of law : As Section 15 of the Act opens with the words “The property of the female Hindu dying intestate” shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16, necessarily Section 15 has to be read with Section 16 of the Act. Therefore, the order of succession among the heirs specified in sub-section (1)(a) of Section 15 shall take simultaneously one share each

JUDGMENT :

Sri.Amaresh A. Angadi learned counsel for appellants and Sri.P.N.Hegde learned counsel for respondents 2 to 8 have appeared in person and Sri.M.R.Rajagopal learned counsel on behalf of Sri.K.S.Kalleshappa for respondent No.1 has appeared through video conferencing.

This is an appeal from the Court of I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

3. The facts of the case are simply stated as under:-

The original Plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendant are the children of one J.Athmaram Mane and Smt.Gopika Bai.

It is stated that the brothers of Smt.Gopika Bai executed a Registered Gift Deed in respect of the house property bearing Door No.36, Anjaneya Temple, First Street, Sheshadripuram Link Road, Bangalore – 560020, measuring East to West 30 feet North to South 47 feet with approximately measuring seven squares building on 24.12.1945. Smt.Gopika Bai died on 27.08.1992 giving instructions to her husband J.Athmaram Mane that the gifted property should go to her daughter Smt.Meera Satyanand Nikam -the third plaintiff.

It is stated that J.Athmaram Mane, had fixed deposit of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) (Receipt No.119/74 dated:23.03.1999) and Saving Bank Account (old No.6/1732) New No.18SB1732 in the State Bank of Mysore, Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore. The father J.Athmaram Mane died on 14.05.1999. After his death, as per the instructions of the father, the original first and the second plaintiffs relinquished their rights in respect of the gifted property (item No.1 of the suit schedule property) in favor of the third plaintiff by executing a Registered Release deeds on 31.08.1999. The defendant has not executed any Release Deed in respect of item No.1 of suit schedule property. The plaintiffs approached the defendant for the division of the properties. But the defendant refused.

It is averred that the properties belonged to their parents J.Athmaram Mane and Smt.Gopika Bai. Plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share each in respect of item Nos.2 and 3 of suit schedule properties and the third plaintiff is entitled for 3/4th share in Item No.1 of the suit schedule property.

Contending that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties and the defendant is making efforts to create third parties’ interest in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property, plaintiffs sought the aid of the Court and filed a suit seeking partition and separate possession with respect of suit schedule properties.

After service of the suit summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed written statement. He denied the plaint averments.

He contended that 6 Acres 30 Guntas of agricultural land situated at Doddaballapura was the ancestral property of the plaintiffs and the defendant. The plaintiffs and one Sachin Dev Nikam acting as a General Power of Attorney Holder sold the said agricultural land for a sum of Rs.24,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty-Four Lakhs only). He is entitled for 1/4th share in the said amount. By mutual discussion, it was agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendant that the defendant shall continue to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule item No.1 property till his share in the sale consideration amount is paid. It is with this understanding that the defendant continued in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule item No.1 property. The plaintiffs and the GPA Holder Sachin Dev Nikam have not paid the share amount. By virtue of the mutual agreement, the defendant is entitled to continue in possession and enjoyment of suit schedule item No.1 property till his 1/4th share in the sale consideration amount is settled. Without settling the amount, plaintiffs have filed the suit.

He contended that the General Power of Attorney Holder Sachin Dev Nikam has taken awa