Interpretation of statutes governing property rights - Exclusion of married daughters from 'family' under KLR Act and application of Hindu Succession Act for partition.

JUDGMENT

1. This regular first appeal is filed under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'CPC') by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 20/6/2015 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court') in O.S. No.56/2014.

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

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for declaration to declare that the gift deed dtd. 2/9/2011 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on the share of the plaintiffs and for a partition and separate possession in respect of 'ABC' schedule properties. The further case of the plaintiffs is that, the original propositus by name Basanagouda son of Honagouda Patil expired on 28/7/1990 leaving behind his wife (defendant No.2) and three sons being plaintiff No.4, defendant No.1 and one Shivanagouda and three daughters being defendant Nos.4 to 6. The eldest son by name Shivanagouda expired on 16/9/2011 leaving behind his wife and two daughters i.e. plaintiff Nos.1 to 3.

4. It is further case of the plaintiffs that, agricultural property shown at Schedule 'A' are tenanted properties cultivated by Basanagouda Honagouda Patil. Under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the occupancy rights had been granted in his favour. Since the plaintiffs have got their right in the suit schedule properties, they have filed a suit. entered their appearance through their counsel. In spite of availing sufficient opportunities, they have not chosen to file any written statement.

In spite of service of summons, defendant Nos.4 to 6 remained absent and they are placed exparte.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issue:

"Does the plaintiffs entitled to the suit relief?"

6. To prove their case, the plaintiffs have examined one Mallanagouda Basanagouda Patil as PW-1 and got marked 16 documents from Exs.P-1 to P-16. The defendants have neither examined any witness nor marked any documents.

7. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit in part holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/7th share in the suit properties by judgment and decree dtd. 20/6/2015. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed this appeal under Sec. 96 of CPC.

8. Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli, learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs has submitted that 'A' suit schedule property is a tenanted land and the tenancy rights has been granted in favour of Basanagouda Patil. He further submitted that since it is a tenanted land, as per the definition of "Family" as defined under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'KLR Act'), 'married daughters' are excluded under the definition of "family" and hence they are not entitled to a share in 'A' schedule property and contrary to the provisions of KLR Act, the trial Court has granted a decree. In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment of this Court in Nimbavva and others v. Channaveerayya and Others reported in ILR 2013 KAR 6202.

9. Sri. M.V. Hiremath, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 to 6 has defended the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

10. Sri. Sunil S. Desai, learned counsel or respondent No.1 and 2 and Sri. Santosh B. Mane, learned counsel for respondent No.3 have adopted the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the appellants.

11. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment and decree and the original records.

12. The points that arise for our consideration are:

i) Whether the married daughters of Basanagouda are entitled for a share in 'A' schedule property which is granted in favour of Basanagouda under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961?

ii) What order?

13. It is not in dispute that the plaintiffs and the defenda