The mother of a deceased Hindu male is a Class-I heir and entitled to a share in the property left by the deceased. Her legal heirs are also entitled to a share after her death.

JUDGMENT : .

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 in this appeal that suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 who is the father of deceased Santhosh and plaintiffs are the wife and son of the deceased Santhosh and they are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties of ½ share and gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.3 by defendant No.2 is also not binding on the plaintiffs.

2. The defendants appeared and filed written statement contending that there was a partition during the life time of deceased Santhosh long back and he had taken money from the defendants as his share. Out of that money deceased Santhosh had purchased 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.101/1 of Jogannanakere Village. The defendants also took the contention that said property has to be included in the suit in the event that suit schedule properties are considered as joint family properties. It is also contended that plaintiff No.2 had remarried one Paramesh Gangadhar subsequent to the death of said Santhosh and she is not entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.3 took the contention that he is the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule properties. The Trial Court having taken note of the pleadings of the plaintiffs and defendants has framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence.

3. The wife of deceased Santhosh had examined herself as PW1 and also examined the first plaintiff as PW2 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P19. Defendant No.1 examined himself as D.W.1 and subsequent purchaser who is defendant No.3 also examined himself as D.W.2 and no documents are produced before the Trial Court. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that suit schedule properties are joint family properties and gift deed is not biding on the plaintiffs and also the sale deed executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 is also not binding on the plaintiffs and defence which have been taken by the defendants answered as negative in coming to the conclusion that there was no partition during the life time of Santhosh and out of the said share he had purchased the property and the said property cannot be included for partition and also comes to the conclusion that remarriage of defendant No.2 with one Paramesh Gangadhar has not disentitled her right and comes to the conclusion that plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and also entitled for mesne profits.

4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court passed in O.S.No.53/2014, the defendants No.1 and 2 have filed an appeal and the same is numbered as R.A.No.70/2017 and the First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal formulated the points whether the trial Judge has erred in holding that plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3rd share, whether the trial Judge erred in not holding that Sy.No.101/1 is also a joint family property, whether the trial Judge has erred in not holding that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e., wife of defendant No.1 is also necessary party and entitled for share in the suit schedule properties and whether the judgment of the Trial Court is erroneous, arbitrary and illegal.

5. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed an error in granting 1/3rd share. However, the trial Judge reversed the finding of the Trial Court answering point No.2 as affirmative that Sy.No.101/1 measuring 16 guntas is also a joint family property. The First Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that suit is not suffers from nonjoinder of necessary party and mother is also not entitled for any share and Trial C