Married daughters are entitled to share in tenanted property as recognized legal heirs under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, contrary to previous interpretations.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.S. KAMAL, J.

1. This appeal is filed by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 6^th April 2016, passed in R.A. No.25/2014 by the Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi (for short “the First Appellate Court”). By this judgment, the First Appellate Court, while partly allowing the appeal filed by defendants / respondents herein, set aside the judgment and decree dated 27^th March 2013, passed in O.S. No.125/2006 by the Prl. Civil Judge, Sirsi (for short “the trial Court”) insofar as it pertained to Schedule “A” property, holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to a share in the said property. However, the Court further held that the plaintiffs are entitled to a 1/5^th share in schedule “B” property.

2. The above suit in O.S. No.125/2006 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession of their 1/5^th share in the plaint schedule property, consisting of land bearing Sy.No.63 measuring 5 acres 36 guntas, as described in schedule “A” of the plaint, and a residential house bearing VPC No.59 situated at Badangode Village in Sirsi Taluka described as schedule “B” of the plaint.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Kuchappa, son of Venktappa Korchar, was the propositus and was first married to one Ummakka. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 were born to Kuchappa and his said first wife Ummakka. After the demise of said Ummakka, Kuchappa married to Subbamma and from this second marriage, defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4, as well as the mother of defendant No.3, were born. During his life time, Kuchappa owned and possessed the suit schedule properties. The schedule “A” property was granted to him pursuant to an order dated 26.10.1985 passed under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Kuchappa passed away on 02.11.1985, leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants as his legal heirs, each being entitled to a 1/5^th share. That when the request of the plaintiffs for partition was denied, they were constrained to file the present suit for partition.

4. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed the written statement contending that their mother by name Subbamma was the legally wedded wife of Kuchappa. After the death of first wife, Kuchappa Korchar married Subbamma out of said wedlock one Nagamma and Puttamma along with defendants were born. That the name of the defendant No.1 was entered into the revenue records of the suit schedule properties with the consent of the plaintiffs ever since then defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties denying the right of the plaintiffs from 02.11.1985 and 02.05.1988. That the defendant No.1 has got right over the “B” schedule property and the plaintiffs and the defendants are not residing to joint family. The plaintiffs have no share, right, title and interest in the property hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

(1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are their joint family properties and they are in possession of the same?

(2) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that they are having ½ share in the suit properties?

(3) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for the relief of partition and ½ separate share in the suit properties as sought?

(4) Whether the defendants prove that this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain this suit as contended in para 11 of the written statement?

(5) What order or decree?

6. Plaintiff No.1 examined himself as PW1 and produced 4 documents, which were marked as Exs.P1