A Devadasi, under customary law, is entitled to inherit property as if she were a son, validating the plaintiff's claim for half share in estate.

JUDGMENT :

J.M.KHAZI, J.

In this Regular Second Appeal, defendants have challenged the concurrent findings of trial Court and First Appellate Court, by which suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed, granting of 1/2 share in the suit schedule properties.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the original propositus Yallappa Holer was the absolute owner of suit schedule properties. He died on 19.01.1946 at Kanamadi.

He was succeed by his daughter Mayawwa and son Kallappa. Plaintiff is the only son of Mayawwa. Kallappa was succeeded by his sons, Yallappa and Sharanappa. Sharanappa died issueless. Defendants are the wife and children of Yallappa. After the death of Yallappa Holer, the names of Mayawwa and Kallappa were entered in the records pertaining to the residential house. However, in respect of the landed property in Sy.No.161/1, only the name of Kallappa was entered behind the back of Mayawwa. Kallappa died during 1957. However, plaintiff and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

4. Mayawwa was a rustic villager. She was dedicated as a Devadasi during the lifetime of her father Yallappa Holer. As per the customs prevailing in Harijan community, daughter left as a Devdasi, who remained unmarried is to be treated as a son for the family. Now that plaintiff is aged and his sons are not in good terms with him and there is no provision for his maintenance, he requested defendant to effect partition. However, they flatly refused, despite advice by the elder and without any alternative suit is filed.

5. Defendants appeared through counsel and filed written statement disputing the relationship between the parties. There are no records to show that Mayawwa was the daughter of Yallappa and therefore plaintiff is related to the defendants. It is denied that propositus Yallappa Bhimawwa Holer was succeeded by Mayawwa and Kallappa. Kallappa was succeeded by Yallappa and Sharanappa. Sharanappa died issueless. It is true that defendants are the wife and children of Yallappa.

5.1. Defendants state that propositus Yallappa Bhimamma Holer died on 19.01.1946 at Balaganur Village. It is true that propositus Yallappa was the absolute owner of Sy.No.161/1 measuring 20 acres 35 guntas of Balaganur Village, Sindagi Taluk. VPC.No.927 of Kanamadi village, Taluk Bijapur is not related to the family of defendants. It is true that suit schedule properties are owned and possessed by propositus Yallappa. It is denied that after the death of Yallappa, he was succeeded by his son Kallappa and daughter Mayawwa. It is false that the name of Mayawwa and Kallappa were entered in VPC.No.927 of Kanamadi village. It is true that name of Kallappa alone was entered in RR of Sy.No.161/1 of Balaganur village. It is denied that the said entry was behind the back of Mayawwa.

5.2. It is denied that Mayawwa was a rustic village lady and she was left as Devadasi during the lifetime of propositus Yallappa. It is denied that as per custom prevailing in Harijan community, the daughter remained unmarried as Devdasi is to be treated as a son for the family. It is true that after the death of Kallappa, the names of his sons, Yallappa and Sharanappa were entered in RR of suit land. It is true that thereafter defendants got their names entered in MR 51/09–10. It is denied that it was done behind the back of plaintiff. It is denied that plaintiff is in joint possession of suit properties and having half share and he requested for partition and despite advice by the elders defendants refuse