The nature of properties as self-acquired or ancestral critically impacts inheritance rights of heirs in partition suits.

JUDGMENT :

Anant Ramanath Hegde, J.

Heard.

This appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:

i) Whether the plaintiffs/appellants are entitled to succeed to the property of defendant No.1, who has died during the pendency of this appeal?

2. With the consent of both the parties, the appeal is taken up for consideration on merits.

3. This is an appeal against the concurrent finding in a suit for partition and separate possession. The suit is dismissed. The plaintiffs appeal in R.A.No.177/2011 is also dismissed. Hence, the second appeal by the plaintiffs.

4. The genealogy claimed by the plaintiffs, to some extent disputed by the defendants is as under:

5. One P.C. Ramalingappa was the propositus. It is stated by the plaintiffs that he had two wives, namely, Jayamma and Puttajayamma. Defendants contend that P.C. Ramalingappa had 9 wives.

6. In the genealogy furnished by the plaintiffs, the name of alleged third wife, Lakshmamma is mentioned and names of alleged remaining wives are not mentioned.

7. It is stated that the Jayamma had two sons from P.C. Ramalingappa, namely, P.R.Ramesh and P.R. Lalit and second wife Puttajayamma had three children, namely, P.R.Jagadamba, P.R.Purushotham and P.C.R. Lakshmikanth and alleged third wife Lakshmamma had two children, namely, P.R.Gopika and P.R.Lakshmi.

8. The suit is filed by P.R.Purushotham and P.C.Lakshmikanth, two children from Puttajayamma - alleged 2^nd wife of P.C. Ramalingappa. Defendant No.1 is P.C. Ramalingappa. Jagadamba, sister of plaintiffs was arrayed as defendant No.2. Defendant No.3 is alleged to be the wife of P.C. Ramalingappa, which contention is disputed.

9. Defendants No.4 and 5 are children of P.C.Ramalingappa from wife Jayamma. The plaintiffs, who claim to be children from the 2^nd wife of P.C.Ramalingappa, filed the suit for partition and even according to the plaintiffs, P.C.Ramalingappa married Puttajayyamma their mother when the first marriage of P.C.Ramalingappa with Jayamma was subsisting.

10. The suit was dismissed primarily on the premise that children of 2^nd wife are not entitled to claim any shares in the properties of P.C.Ramalingappa when he was alive.

11. First Appellate Court took the same view. Hence, the appeal was dismissed. Now P.C. Ramalingappa, the propositus died during the pendency of this appeal.

12. Learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the except item No.5 of suit schedule properties, all other suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of P.C. Ramalingappa. It was his contention in the Trial Court that all properties except item No.5 are self acquired properties. Thus, it is urged that the plaintiffs are entitled to equally inherit all the self acquired properties of P.C. Ramalingappa along with the children of first wife.

13. It is also urged that as far as item No.5 is concerned, plaintiffs are entitled to inherit in the notional share that is to be allotted to P.C.Ramalingappa immediately before his death.

14. Learned counsel for the defendants would contend that all the properties are not self acquired properties of P.C.Ramalingappa and in fact, the properties are all the ancestral properties of P.C.Ramalingappa. It is his further contention that some of the properties are sold prior to the institution of the suit by P.C.Ramalingappa and those persons are not made parties to the suit.

15. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar.

16. It is noticed that the defendants have raised the contention that P.C.Ramalingappa had executed the Gift Deed before the institution of the suit. However, the gift deed was not produced before the Trial Cou