This appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the

judgment and preliminary decree dated 31.10.2014 passed

by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Saundatti, in O.S.

No.11/2013.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

The appellants are defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 5.

1^st respondent is the plaintiff and 2^nd respondent is the 2^nd

defendant. The plaintiff filed a suit for partition and separate

possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that, the plaintiff

and defendant No.1 are the members of the Hindu undivided

family and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral

properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. No partition is

effected between the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The

plaintiff requested defendant No.1 to effect a partition but

defendant No.1 refused to effect a partition. Hence, the suit.

Defendant No.1 filed written statement denying

the averments made in the plaint. It is contended that

- 4 -

Sy.No.216/B measuring 8 acres 4 guntas was entered in the

name of the Government and name of the plaintiff is entered

within brackets. The plaintiff is not in possession of the

property along with the defendants. Only defendant No.1 is

in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. It is

contended that there was difference of opinion between

defendant No.1 and defendant No.2. Defendant No.2 filed a

petition for maintenance before the Family Court and the

said petition was partly allowed. Defendant No.2 is working

in Anganwadi and getting salary of Rs.2,250/-. One of the

house properties, which is an ancestral property, has not

been included in the suit property. Hence, the suit is not

maintainable for non-joinder of necessary property. Hence,

prayed to dismiss the suit.

Defendant No.2 filed written statement admitting

regarding suit properties being ancestral properties and the

Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights. It is contended

that, defendant No.2 is the legally wedded wife of defendant

No.1 and the plaintiff is born in of their wedlock and hence

the plaintiff has got legal right over the suit properties.

- 5 -

Hence, prayed to decree the suit and made a counter claim

for partition and separate possession.

Defendant No.4 filed written statement denying the

averments made in the plaint and admitted that, the suit

properties were granted by the Land Tribunal to Tammanna

Mallappa Enni. It is denied that the suit properties had fallen

to the share of defendant No.1 in the partition. It is denied

that difference arose between defendant No.1 and defendant

No.2 and defendant No.2 filed a petition for maintenance. It

is also denied that the plaintiff demanded for partition and

separate possession. It is contended that Sy. Nos.185/3 and

216/1B in column No.9 of Record of Rights, the name of the

Government is entered and it is contended that defendant

No.1 is not the sole owner of the properties. The plaintiff

has no right to demand any share in the suit properties.

Defendant No.4 is the daughter of defendant No.1 and has

got equal 1/5^th share along with defendant No.3 and 5.

Defendant No.4 has also sought for partition and separate

possession by way of counter claim.

- 6 -

5.

The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of

the parties framed the following issues:

1. Does the plaintiff prove that Sy.No.216/1B

measuring 8 acres 4 guntas of Chachadi village

is the joint family property?

2. Does the plaintiff prove the cause of action of

this suit?

3. Does the plaintiff entitled for half share?

4. Does defendant No.1 prove that plaintiff suit is

not maintainable without all properties in the

hotch pot?

5. What decree/order?

6.

The plaintiff in order to substantiate his case, got

examined himself as PW-1 and got examined 2 witnesses as

PWs.2 and 3 and got marked documents Exs.P-1 to P-3.

Defendant No.1 was examined as DW-1 got examined 3

witnesses as DWs.2 to 4 and got marked documents Exs.D-1

to D-3. The trial Court afte