Joint family properties with tenancy rights must be equitably divided, and prior agreements should be recognized in claims of ownership.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI)

Being aggrieved by the judgment of the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.162/2000 dated 31.08.2007, which allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment of the Trial Court in O.S.No.147/1990 dated 09.11.2000, whereby, the suit came to be dismissed, plaintiff is before this Court in second appeal. 2. The factual matrix that is relevant for the purpose of this appeal is as below:

a. The plaintiff is the wife of one Siddappa. For better understanding, the family pedigree of the plaintiff and defendants as stated in the plaint is reproduced below.

b. The propositus-Yellappa and his wife died leaving behind three sons i.e., Hanumappa, Basappa and Siddappa. The propositus- Yellappa was not having any ancestral property in his name. The second son of Yellappa i.e., Basappa (Defendant No. 9), had separated long back and he went to the house of his wife and started maintaining the property belonging to her. After death of Yellappa, his remaining two sons i.e. Hanumappa and Siddappa started living together and cultivated the lands on tenancy basis. The suit properties are the tenancy lands held by them. On the basis of the income derived from the tenancy lands, the other properties were acquired by them.

c. Hanumappa was the elder among them and he was the Karta of the joint Hindu family and the name of Hanumappa has been entered in the cultivators column of revenue records in respect of the suit schedule properties.

d. In the year 1974, on the advent of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, the Karta of the family filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal for grant of occupancy rights and accordingly, the lands were granted in his name. During the course of such proceedings, the said Hanumappa and his son Bhimappa and daughter-in-law Bhimavva could not pull on well, with Siddappa and the relationship was not cordial, which resulted in a mutual partition between Hanumappa and Siddappa on 19.06.1974 in the presence of the elders of the village. Such partition was reduced into writing and both of them have signed the said Yadi. The copy of the Yadi was handed over to Siddappa.

e. When the suit properties which were the tenancy lands, were declared by the tribunal to be in the occupation of Hanumappa, the name of said Hanumappa was entered in the records. When the son of Hanumappa i.e., Bhimappa died, the defendants No.1 and 2, who are wife of Bhimappa and wife of Hanumappa in collusion with the defendant No.3- Shanmukhappa succeeded in getting their names entered in respect of the tenancy lands under M.E.No.5022, leaving out Siddappa.

f. When this fact came to the knowledge of Siddappa, he gave a request on 26.06.1987 to enter his name along with the name of the defendant No.1 and her children and accordingly, the mutation entry No.5022, which entered the name of the defendants No.1, 2 and 3, came to be cancelled under M.E.No.5108 dated 18.08.1987.

g. Siddappa died on 18.01.1988, leaving behind him the plaintiff alone. The plaintiff also gave application to delete the name of Siddappa and enter her name and accordingly, M.E.No.5169 came to be entered in respect of half share of the suit schedule properties.

h. The M.E.No.5108 entering the name of Siddappa for the suit schedule properties was questioned before the Assistant Commissioner and after hearing the appeal, the Assistant Commissioner restored M.E.No.5022, whereby, the name of the defendants No.1 to 3 was entered in the records. On basis of the same, the defendants started obstructing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the half share in the suit schedule properties and when the defendants did not heed to the request of the plaintiff, she was constrained to file the suit. The plaintiff sought a declaration that she has half share in the suit schedule propert