The court ruled that the plaintiffs' claims over certain properties were invalid due to prior sales, emphasizing the necessity of declarations regarding property ownership in joint familial contexts under Hindu Succession principles.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.UMA, J.

The plaintiffs in OS.No.322/2001 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short) have preferred RSA No.1334/2009 impugning the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2007 passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit allotting 1/5^th share each in Item Nos. 1 and 3 of the schedule 'A' property, while rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of Item No.2 and also the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2009 passed in RA No.20/2008 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge and Fast Track Court - II, at Davangere (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for short), modifying the judgment of the Trial Court by holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3^rd share along with defendants Nos.2 and 6 in Item Nos.1 and 3, and the plaintiffs along with defendant Nos.2 and 6 are entitled for 1/15^th share in plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Defendant Nos.1 and 4 each are entitled for 1/3^rd share in plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties.

2. Defendant Nos.1, 5 and 6 in OS.No.322/2001 referred to above have preferred RSA No.1279/2009 impugning the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.20/2008 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of Item No.2 of schedule 'A' of the plaint.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court.

4. Facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiffs being the wife and children of late Jagalur Channabasappa, filed the suit in OS.No.322/2001 before the Trial Court against defendant Nos.1 to 6 contending that late Kotrappa, who is the husband of defendant No.1 is the propositus of the family. The said late Kotrappa and defendant No.1 were having 2 children i.e. Jagalur Channabasappa and Rudramma - defendant No.4. Jagalur Channabasappa died in the year 1998 leaving behind him the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 as his legal heirs. Even though plaintiffs and defendants are residing separately, they constitute joint family in respect of the joint family properties described in Schedule 'A' to 'D' attached to the plaint. The plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the propositus Kotrappa, and after his death it devolved on his wife- defendant No.1, son Jagalur Channabasappa and daughter Rudramma- defendant No.4. However, the khata in respect of the schedule properties were transferred in the name of defendant No.1 being the mother, who was managing the affairs of the family. Even though the plaintiffs made repeated requests to defendant No.1 to divide the schedule properties by metes and bounds, she was not ready and willing to do the same. On the other hand, defendant No.1 sold schedule 'B' property in favour of defendant No.3 under the sale deed dated 11.06.1997 without any right, title or interest.

5. It is stated that Jagaluru Channabasappa, the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of other plaintiffs had sold 'C' schedule property on 12.06.1997, during his lifetime in favour of defendant No.4, and the said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs. Therefore, it is contented that the cause of action for the suit for partition and separate possession had arisen and accordingly, plaintiffs prayed for judgment anddecree for partition and separate possession of all the schedule properties.

6. Schedule 'A' attached to the plaint describes two landed properties and a house