Point of Law: Section 15(2) of Hindu Succession Act deal with inheritance from parental family of a female Hindu.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree passed in RA No.28/2008 on the file of the Prl. District Judge, Raichur arising out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.20/2006 by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Raichur dated 06.03.2008.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S. No.20/2006. The parties are referred as per their ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction contending that he had married Smt. Eshwaramma D/o Ramangouda in the year 1960 and his wife Eshwaramma was owner in possession of suit land bearing Sy.No.287/A measuring 22 acres 18 guntas situated at Athanur village in Manvi Taluk. It was contended that after the death of his wife Eshwaramma, the plaintiff became a exclusive legal heir and the said Eshwaramma died issueless in the year 1998. It was also contended that the said Eshwaramma had acquired ownership over the suit property on the strength of the oral partition between her father and her brothers namely Muddanagouda, Sharanappa, Siddanagouda and Shanker in the year 1968. The partition which was initially oral, came to be recorded in a memorandum of partition and the same came to be registered on 21.09.1974. Initially, the suit survey number which was fallen to the share of Eshwaramma was measuring 26 acres 28 guntas and later a portion of it had to be surrendered to the Government in view of the ceiling limitations under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Ultimately Sy.No.287/A measuring 22 acres 18 guntas which is the suit property came to be retained by the said Eshwaramma. It was also contended that the Eshwaramma continued in possession of the said property till her death. However, there were some discrepancy in the mutation entries and as such the name of Muddangouda continued in the record of rights. It was also contended that earlier the name of Eshwaramma was introduced along with the name of one Muddangouda in the cultivators column and the name of one Basavaraj came to be deleted, who died about two years back leaving behind his son Murali and his wife Narsamma. Taking advantage of these hollow entry, the defendants started obstruction in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit land and therefore the plaintiff who is the husband of Eshwaramma was constrained to file suit for declaration of his title as well as consequential relief of injunction.

4. On issuance of summons, the defendants did appear through their counsel, but they did not choose to prefer any written statement. The plaintiff was examined before the Trial Court as PW1 and two witnesses were examined on his behalf as PW2 and PW3. Ex.P1 to Ex.P4 came to be marked and received in evidence. None of these witnesses were cross examined by the defendants.

5. The Trial Court framed the following points for consideration.

1. Whether plaintiff proves that he is the owner and possessor of the suit land?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves the interference of the defendants?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for rectification of the entries?

4. What order?

6. After hearing the submissions by the counsel for the plaintiff, the suit came to be dismissed.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment of the dismissal, the plaintiff approached the first appellate Court in R.A.No.28/2008. There also the defendants did not appear and after hearing the submissions by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the first appellate Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the appeal. It is the said judgment of the first appellate Court which is challenged before this Court.

8. This Court by order dated 23.04.2010 admitted the appeal and the following substantial question of law was formulated.

Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in holding that Section 15(2) of The Hindu Succession Act was attracted in respect of the suit property and the same was allotted to the share of the wife of the plaintiff under a partition deed?

9. The records of the Trial Court as well as