A customary divorce without a court decree is not valid under the Hindu Marriage Act, and the legal heirs of a deceased individual are determined by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT

1. The present second appeal by the plaintiffs Nos.1(a) to 1(c) assailing the concurrent findings of the Courts below dtd. 23/6/2018 in R.A. No.2/2014 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 1/1/2014 in O.S. No.274/2007 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge, Mudhol.

2. The parties herein are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The original plaintiff, one Smt. Basalingawwa filed the said suit seeking the relief of declaration and consequential injunction contending that the original propositus Sri Timmappa @ Timmanna died in the year 1997 leaving behind his wife - original plaintiff and children namely Ramanna - defendant No.1, Bhimappadefendant No.2 and deceased Laxman as his legal heirs. It is contended that the elder son Ramanna was given in adoption to one Hanamanth Hugar and the said Ramanna has severed from the family. It is stated that after the death of the original propositus, all the properties owned by the propositus were inherited by the plaintiff and her children. It is further stated that the said Laxman had married defendant No.3-Sarojini, but later on, due to uncordial relationship between Laxman and defendant No.3-Sarojini, there was divorce as per the customs prevailing in their community and that deceased Laxman had divorced defendant No.3 in the presence of elders. That defendant No.4 is no way concerned with the deceased Laxman, but she is claiming herself to be the wife of deceased Laxman and defendant No.5 is the daughter of deceased Laxman through defendant No.4. It is stated that after divorce with defendant No.3, deceased Laxman, at no point of time, had married defendant No.4. During the lifetime of Laxman, there was a partition between Laxman and his brothers on 16/6/1998 and in the partition, the suit schedule properties have fallen to the share of deceased Laxman. That the plaintiff being the mother and class-I heir of deceased Laxman, has inherited the properties of the deceased Laxman alone and that defendant Nos.3 to 5 have no right, whatsoever nature, over the suit schedule properties.

4. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiffBasalingawwa expired and her children who were the original defendant Nos.3 to 5 sought for transposition as plaintiffs and claimed right under the original plaintiff. The said application was rejected. However, the said order was challenged before this Court in W.P. No.63557/2012, which came to be allowed with a direction to transpose the original defendant Nos.3 to 5 as plaintiffs as the applicants have claimed their rights through a Will in their favour and the original defendant Nos.3 to 5 were transposed as plaintiff Nos.1(a) to 1(c).

5. The present defendant Nos.3 to 5, who were the original defendant Nos.6 to 8, pursuant to the issuance of summons and after transposition, have become defendant Nos.3 to 5 and they had already filed written statement as defendant No.6 and the written statement was adopted by defendant Nos.7 and 8. Then defendant Nos.6 to 8 are the present defendant Nos.3 to 5 in the suit.

6. The contention of defendant Nos.3 to 5 (original defendant Nos.6 to 8) is, denial of the plaint in toto and contended that the names of the defendants have been wrongly shown. It is specifically contended that deceased Laxman had married defendant No.3 and denied that the customary divorce had taken place between the deceased Laxman and defendant No.3- Sarojini. The averments in the plaint denying the relationship of defendant Nos.3 to 5 with that of deceased Laxman is specifically denied by the defendants.

7. Defendant No.3 specifically averred that she is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Laxman. Though several proceedings were initiated between deceased Laxman and defendant No.3, there is no dissolution of their marriage as contended by the plaintiffs.

8. The defendants specifically averred that they are the exclusive owner