The judgment establishes the primacy of prior legal determinations regarding heirship, emphasizing previous findings must guide current claims unless new evidence warrants a reconsideration.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S.KINAGI, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2013 passed in R.A. No.28 of 2012 by the learned First Additional District Judge, Kodagu at Madikiri.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for declaration to declare that they are the wife and children of late J.M.Chandrashekhar and also for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that one J.C.Mallappa was the original propositus. He had seven children: defendant Nos.1 to 4, and one J.M.Chandrashekar and 2 daughters. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of J.M.Chandrashekar, who is the second son of J.C.Mallappa-original propositus. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and the same were owned and possessed by the original propositus-J.C.Mallappa. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family. J.M.Chandrashekar died leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. After the demise of J.M.Chandrashekar, the plaintiffs’ demanded for a partition and separate possession. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 denied to effect a partition on the ground that the plaintiffs are not the legal heirs of the late J.M.Chandrashekhar. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for declaration, partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

5. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the relationship of plaintiffs with J.M.Chandrashekar and it is contended that plaintiff No.1 is not the wife of J.M.Chandrashekar and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are not the children of J.M.Chandrashekar and plaintiff No.1. Thus, the plaintiffs have no right, title or interest to claim any share in the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.5 is the legally wedded wife of J.M.Chandrashekar and defendant No.6 is the son of J.M.Chandrashekar and defendant No.5. It is contended that the suit schedule properties are the inam in tenure.

6. It is contended that after the introduction of Inam Abolition Act, the defendants filed an application for declaration of their occupancy right before the Land Tribunal, Madikeri, regarding the suit schedule properties. The said application was allowed. The properties in question are neither joint family ancestral properties nor coparcenery properties.Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

7. Defendant Nos.2 to 6 and 9 filed a memo adopting the written statement filed by defendant No.1 and prays to dismiss the suit against them.

8. Defendants 7, 9 and 10 were placed exparte before the Trial Court, since, despite service, there was no representation.

9. The Trial Court, based on the rival pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife and plaintiff No.2 and 3 are children of late J.M. Chandrashekar?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they and defendants No.1 to 4 are only in joint possession of suit schedule properties and plaintiffs having 1/5^th share in suit schedule properties?

3. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that defendant No.5 and 6 are legal and legitimate wife and son of late J.M.Chandrashekara?

4. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party?

5. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that suit schedule properties are their self acquired property?

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief as p