The court affirmed that upon the intestate death of a family member, heirs succeed to the estate, necessitating a fresh trial to consider these developments and their implications for partition of inherited properties.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellant-plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.458/2014 dated 13.06.2018 by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gokak.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial court. The appellant was the plaintiff and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this Regular First Appeal, are as follows:

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for a partition and separate possession regarding the lands bearing Sy.Nos.43/1, 527, 110 and 42, situated Hirenandi village of Gokak Taluk. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Laxmappa was the propositus, He had three children, namely, Siddappa, Ashappa and Uddappa (defendant No.1). Balawwa was the wife of Uddappa. Udappa had five children, namely, Ittappa (defendant No.2), Laxmann (defendant No.3), Ashok, Rajashree (the plaintiff), and Basappa (defendant No.4). It is stated that suit schedule properties were originally owned and possessed by the original propositus Laxmappa, and after his death, the name of Siddappa was mutated in the record of rights regarding Sy.No.110 and 527. Thereafter, the name of Rukmawwa, who is the daughter of Siddappa was entered in the record of rights. It is contended that there was a partition between Rukmawwa and defendant No.1-Uddappa regarding the family properties. In the said partition, Sy.Nos.110 and 527 fell to the share of defendant No.1. Thereafter, defendant No.1 purchased Sy.Nos.42 and 43 measuring 2 acres 21 guntas, out of the income derived from the above said ancestral properties. Thus, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff and the defendants are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family, and no partition is effected between them. The plaintiff demanded a partition and the separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for a partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement.

Defendant Nos.2 to 4 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 denied the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendant No.1 admitted that the original propositus Laxmappa died leaving behind his three children, i.e., Siddappa, Ashappa and Uddappa. It is also stated that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are the children of Uddappa (Defendant No. 1). It is contended that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of Defendant No. 1, and the plaintiff has no right to claim a share in the suit schedule properties.

Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

6. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the item Nos.2 and 3 of suit properties are ancestral family properties of the joint family comprising of herself and the defendants?

2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the item Nos.1 and 4 of suit properties are purchased by the defendant No.1 out of the joint family nucleus?

3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition as prayed?

4) What order or decree?

7. To substantiate her case, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1, and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 to P7. Conversely, Defendant No.2 was examined as D.W.1, one witness was examined as D.W.2, and marked 7 documents as Exs.D1 to D7.

8. The trial court,