Property claims arising from sale deeds prior to 2005 are barred by limitation if not contested within statutory periods, affecting entitlement to ancestral property rights.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3. The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that plaintiff and the defendants are sisters i.e. daughters of Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa, S/o. Siddappa and Deveeramma. The suit schedule properties originally belongs to Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa, S/o. Siddappa i.e., the father of the plaintiff and defendants and during the lifetime of Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa, the suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa and thereafter, he was in possession. The plaintiff and the defendants being his legal heirs are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties along with Smt. Deveeramma, the mother of the parties to the suit. Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa being the father, he was the manager of the family, the plaintiff and defendants are the members of the joint family.

3. The plaintiff further contend that Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa died on 11.08.1963 and after his demise, his wife Smt. Deveeramma was looking after the management on the support of Sri Javanappa, the elder brother of her husband. The marriage of the plaintiff and the defendant was celebrated out of the income arising from the suit schedule properties, even Smt. Deveeramma also died on 07.02.2005 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendant as the LRs of Sri Channanjappa @ Puttappa and Smt. Deveeramma. It is also the contention that suit schedule properties being in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendants. As the plaintiff was married to Mahadevappa of Bedarapura Village and she is living in Bedarapura with the assistance of Subbappa, the defendant's husband, the suit schedule properties are managed by the defendant with the assistance of her husband, the crops that over earned from the suit schedule properties was normally given to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff has regularly given her share, she was in good terms with the defendant.

4. It is also the contention that defendant's husband Sri Subbappa also passed away about 1½ years ago, after his demise, the agricultural operation is not properly maintained by the defendant. Hence, the plaintiff has spoken with the defendant to divide her share and deliver her share of the properties for her separate possession. The defendant turned a deaf ear and does not show her readiness to divide the suit schedule properties and to the surprise of plaintiff, the late husband of the defendant with a malafide intention to knock off the properties to himself, concocted the RTC getting entry of his name in the relevant column of RTC behind the back of the plaintiff. It is also the contention that the defendant's husband, a poor man from Nagavalli Village and inducted to the family of Channanjappa @ Puttappa as Channanjappa @ Puttappa was unsoundness of mind, being inducted to the family who was also members of the joint family and he was managing the affairs of the alleged sale deeds are sham, colourable and not intended to be acted upon and the same if fraudulent and thus they cannot take away the characteristics of jointness. However the joint family continued under the management of the defendant's husband. It is also the contention that the plaintiff has though put her demands orally for partition and there is no response from the defendant and plaintiff has got issued a legal notice and defendant did not come forward and hence, filed a suit without any other alternative.

5. In pursuance of suit sum