The bequeath made by a person belonging to Scheduled Caste of the granted land does not amount to 'transfer' and is not prohibited under Sec. 4 of the PTCL Act. The bequeath of land under a Will does not amount to transfer and there is no prohibition of transfer of land, occupancy of which has been granted to a tenant by Will.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This appeal is filed praying to set aside the judgment and decree dtd. 31/1/2013 passed in RA No.146/2012 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru ('First Appellate Court' for short ) and confirm the judgment and decree dtd. 6/3/2012 passed in O.S. No.1370/2007 by the First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru ('trial Court' for short).

2. The appellant-Sri. Rangaswamy was defendant No.2, the Respondent No.1-Jayalakshmi was the plaintiff and Respondent No.2-Smt. Sakamma, Respondent No.3- Bhagyamma and Respondent No.4-Sri. K.A. Ramaiah Reddy were Defendants No.1, 3 & 4 respectively in OS No.1370/2007.

3. The parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

4. The plaintiff-Smt.Jayalakshmi has filed a suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. There are two items of the suit schedule properties. One is an agricultural land bearing Sy. No.24/P8 measuring 4 acre 10 guntas situated at Yelachahalli Village, Yelawala Hobli, Mysuru Taluk, and another is a Mangaluru Tiled House measuring 20ft.x30ft.

5. It is the case of plaintiff-Smt. Jayalakshmi before the trial Court that, the plaintiff is the younger daughter, the 3rd defendant-Smt. Bhagyamma is elder daughter, and the 2nd defendant-Sri. Rangaswamy is the son of late Chikkarangaiah, while the 1st defendant- Sakamma is their mother, viz., the wife of Sri. Chikkarangaiah. It is stated that the property bearing Sy. No.24/P8 measuring 4 acre 10 guntas is an absolute and self-acquired property of late Chikkarangaiah, who got the same by way of Dharkast and Item Nos. 1 & 2 are the absolute properties of late Sri.Chikkarangaiah. It is stated that, due to old age, Sri. Chikkarangaiah consented for joint khatha of the land in the name of the 2nd defendant- Sri. Rangaswamy and the 2nd defendant-Sri. Rangaswamy was managing the joint family. The plaintiff-Smt. Jayalakshmi has insisted for equal partition of suit schedule properties and demanded her share in the suit schedule properties and the 2nd defendant-Sri. Rangaswamy refused to effect partition and tried to alienate the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the plaintiff-Smt. Jayalakshmi has filed a suit.

6. Defendant No.1-Sakamma filed written statement and admitted the relationship of the parties to the suit as contended by the plaintiff-Smt. Jayalakshmi. But, she denied that the khatha of Item No.2 of suit schedule property was made in the joint name of her husband and the 2nd defendant-Sri. Rangaswamy, by virtue of consent of Sri. Chikkarangaiah, owing to his old age. She contended that the 2nd defendant-Sri. Rangaswamy never care to look after or maintain his father-Sri. Chikkarangaiah at any point of time. She contended that, Sri. Chikkarangaiah executed the Will dtd. 19/4/2007 bequeathing a portion of Item No.1 of the suit schedule property in favour of herself (Defendant No.1-Smt. Sakamma), plaintiff-Smt. Jayalakshmi and the 3rd defendant-Smt. Bhagyamma. She contended that the Will dtd. 30/4/2007 is not genuine and valid. She further contended that, she is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties and she prayed to declare her share in the suit schedule properties, stating that she has paid the Court Fee.

7. The 2nd defendant-Sri. Rangaswamy in his written statement contended that the suit is not maintainable. He admitted that, the plaintiff-Smt. Jaylakshmi is the daughter and he is the son of Sri. Chikkarangaiah and the 1st defendant-Smt. Sakamma. But, he contended that the 3rd defendant is a stranger to his family. He denied that the plaintiff demanded partition. He contended that, Sri. Chikkarangaiah executed the Will on 30/4/2007 in his favour and as per the same, the revenue records stand in his name and he is in lawful possession of the suit schedule properties and prayed to dismiss the suit.

8. The 3rd defendant-Smt.Bhagyamma contended that, Sri.Chikkarangaiah has objected the mutation of khatha of Item No.1