The court established that property acquired by an individual during their lifetime is self-acquired and not ancestral, impacting the distribution of shares among heirs under the Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT

C M Joshi, J.

Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the VII Additional Civil Judge, Bangalore, (CCH 19) in OS No.1743/1997, on 20-02-2006, the plaintiff is before this Court in appeal questioning the share allotted to her.

2. The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of this appeal are that:

The plaintiff happens to be the daughter of Venkatanarasappa and Padmavathamma. Apart from Padmavathamma, Venkatanarasappa had two other wives by name Susheelamma and Shamalamma. Venkatanarasappa died intestate on 10-4-1974 leaving behind him Nagarathnamma, daughter from first wife-Susheelamma; plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 2 from the second wife i.e. defendant No.3 Padmavathamma; and one Manjunatha from his third wife-Shamalamma. After the death of Venkatanarasappa, the children of three wives of Venkatanarasappa entered into a registered partition and divided the property which was standing in the name of Venkatanarasappa. The property standing in the name of Venkatanarasappa was purchased by him under a sale deed dated 03-08-1955. After the death of Venkatanarasappa, the three wives of Venkatanarasappa and their children entered into a partition on 19-03-1980 and daughter of Susheelamma was given her share in the form of cash and the suit schedule property was divided into half and the branch of Padmavathamma and Shamalamma were given each of the said portion.

3. The plaintiff is seeking partition in respect of the property which had fallen to the share of Padmavathamma, the mother of the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2. Defendant No.3 Padmavathamma died on 11-06-2015 and therefore, the lis remains between the plaintiff and defendants No. 1 and 2.

4. In the written statement, defendants No. 1 and 2 denied the claim of the plaintiff, but they contended that they had performed the marriage of the plaintiff and also spent for her education and that the plaintiff had also assured that any money that would be paid by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 would be returned to them. A panchayat was held and it was decided that the suit schedule property has to be divided among defendants No. 1 and 2 only and in return they shall maintain defendant No.3 till her death and also look after the education and marriage of the plaintiff. Therefore, they contended that the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule property and they had also spent more than Rs.2,00,000/- by borrowing money and looked after defendant No.3 and also spent for the marriage of the plaintiff. They also contended that defendant No.3 who was allotted 1/3rd of the share in the partition has executed a release deed on 4-12-1996 relinquishing her right in the suit schedule property. On these grounds, they contended that the suit is not maintainable and same be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Does plaintiff prove that under the registered partition deed dated 19.3.1980 suit property was allotted to her along with defendants 1 to 3?

2. Does plaintiff prove that she is in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property?

3. Whether the defendants prove that the suit property is the ancestral property?

4. Whether the defendants prove that there was a partition on 20.3.1982 and in that partition a share was allotted to the plaintiff and she has received her share as stated in para 11 of the written statement?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits?

7. What order or decree?

6. The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and Exhibits P1 to P3 were marked. The defendants neither chose to cross- examine PW1 nor they led any evidence.

7. When the matter is posted for arguments, neither plaintiff nor defendants urged their arguments and hence, the matter was posted for judgment.

8. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings, evidence and documents available on record, answered the issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the affir