Judicial discretion under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act allows for modifications in claims to ensure justice while considering evolving case needs and preventing multiplicity of litigation.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2019 passed in R.A. No.12/2015 by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. Respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and appellants and respondent No.4 were the defendants.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this Miscellaneous Second Appeal are as follows.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for declaration to declare that he is the absolute owner of the suit A schedule property and the transaction between deceased Chandrahas and defendant No.4 is not binding on him and sought for the relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of A schedule property.

5. It the case of the plaintiff that Mahantavva is the wife of Chandappa and they had three sons and one daughter by the name Shivanagappa, Mahantappa, Yankanna and Neelamma. Chandrappa died about 30 to 35 years back, leaving behind some properties, wife and children. The sons of Chandrappa orally partitioned the properties long back and some of the properties were sold. After the demise of Chandrappa, his wife Mahantavva was living separately and as per her will, visiting her children's house. She had love and affection with all the sons, daughter and grandchildren. She had gold and silver ornaments and some savings. Out of her self-earned money, she had purchased the land in R.S.No.95/2A, measuring 3 acres 38 guntas from one Sangayya under a registered sale deed dated 22.12.1986. During 1990-1991, in the presence of elders of village, she got divided her movable and immovable properties to her children. In the said partition, the gold and silver ornaments were given to Mahantappa, yankanna and Neelamma equally. Accordingly, she gave land bearing R.S.No.95/2A to the plaintiff. The plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The defendants trying to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. It is contended that one Chandrahas, i.e., the son of Mahanatappa has fraudulently created documents regarding the title of the suit properties and obtained loan from defendant no. 4 on the suit property. It is contended that the deceased Chandrahas has no right, title or interest over the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose to file a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Accordingly, prayed to decree the suit.

6. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement for herself and on behalf of defendant Nos.2 and 3, who were minors. Defendants No.1 to 3 denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that the deceased Mahantavva was mostly residing with her elder son Mahantappa, who was well to do and financially well by virtue of his contract work and by his duty. Mahantappa was engaged in contract work. He had purchased the suit land in his mother’s name on 22.12.1986 through a registered sale deed. The suit property was in actual possession of Mahantappa and he was enjoying the ownership of the suit land. It is contended that the plaintiff used to pressurize the mother to effect partition. She yielded to the pressure of the plaintiff and prepared memorandum of partition on 10.08.1992 and the suit land was got allotted in the name of the plaintiff and his name was mutated under M.E.No.1946. This fact was not known to the deceased Mahantavva but when the deceased Mahantappa narrated to his mother, she virtually reprimanded the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiff is estopped from questioning M.E.No.2047. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable and the suit is barred by limitation. It is also contended that defendants No.1 to 3 have acquired the suit property by virtue