Occupancy rights in joint family property, though granted to one member, benefit the entire joint family, reaffirming joint interests despite claims of individual ownership.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.S. Kamal, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the defendant No.1, since deceased, represented by his legal representatives, being aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 28.01.2019, passed in Regular Appeal in R.A.No.89/2015 on the file of the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’), by which the First Appellate Court while allowing the said appeal filed by the respondents who are plaintiffs, set aside the judgement and decree dated 14.08.2015 passed in O.S.No.175/2008 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judge and II Addl. JMFC, Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) and consequently, decreed the suit holding that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of partition and separate possession of 2/3^rd share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds.

2. The above suit in O.S. No.175/2008 was filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession of their 2/3^rd share in the suit property bearing R.S. No.60/1 measuring 6 acres 3 guntas, situated at Hulihalli village, Ranebennur Taluka, contending inter alia that one Irappa was the propositus, who had four children namely Basappa, Ujjappa, Marasiddappa and Chanbasappa through his wife Smt. Siddalingamma. The propositus Irappa and his wife passed away long ago, leaving behind a joint family consisting of the aforesaid four sons. The first son, Basappa, passed away unmarried; the second son, Ujjappa, died in the year 1993, leaving behind defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 6 to 9 as his legal heirs; the third son, Marasiddappa, died on 08.07.1994, leaving behind plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 as his legal heirs; and the fourth son, Chanabasappa, died in the year 2002, leaving behind plaintiff Nos.7 to 11 as his legal heirs.

3. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the original propositus, Irappa, was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which he was cultivating as a tenant. Even after his death, his aforesaid four sons continued to cultivate the said property as members of the joint family. However, they began to reside separately due to differences of opinion amongst the members of the joint family, after taking their respective shares in other ancestral joint family properties. Nevertheless, the suit property continued to be jointly cultivated by them as tenants.

4. That in view of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act , 1961, the suit property vested with the Government. The deceased Ujjappa, the second son of the propositus filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, seeking grant of occupancy rights in his favour and for the benefit of the joint family, as the property was being cultivated by the legal heirs of Irappa. The Land Tribunal granted the occupancy rights in favour of Ujjappa for and on behalf of the joint family. Accordingly, Ujjappa, Marasiddappa and Chanbasappa are entitled for equal shares in the suit property. As there has been no partition between the plaintiffs and defendants, the above suit seeking for partition was filed.

5. Defendant Nos.1 and 5 filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendant Nos.2 to 4 and 6 to 9. The defendants denied the geology produced by the plaintiffs, as well as the existence of a joint family, and contended that the suit prop