This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

decree, dated 19.04.2007, passed in O.S. No.128/2003 on

the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur (for short,

‘the Trial Court’).

The suit is filed for the relief of declaration of

title in respect of item No.1(a) of suit schedule properties

and item No.B and C of suit schedule properties. The suit

is dismissed. The genealogy, which is undisputed, is

reproduced at page No.2 of the impugned judgment.

The undisputed genealogy would disclose that

Kariyappa was propositus. He had a daughter by name

Mallawwa. Mallawwa was the sole heir of Kariyappa, who

died in 1967. Mallawwa died in 1993. Mallawwa had three

daughters and four sons. Mallawwa’s elder daughter

Gangavva is also no more. Gangavva’s daughter Ningavva

(plaintiff No.1), along with two other daughters of

Mallawwa viz., Shantavva (plaintiff No.2) and Ningavva

(plaintiff No.3) filed the above said suit. The elder son of

- 5 -

Mallawwa is also no more. His wife Ningavva is arrayed as

defendant No.1 and their children are arrayed as

defendants No.2 to 6. Defendants No.7, 8 & 9 are the

remaining three sons of Mallawwa.

The suit item No.1(a) property was purchased

by Mallawwa in the year 1972 under a registered sale deed

dated

05.05.1972

for

a

valuable

consideration

of

Rs.2,000/-.

The

remaining

suit

schedule

properties

originally belonged to the propositus Kariyappa. This fact

is not in dispute. After the demise of the propositus

Kariyappa, the properties devolved upon his only daughter

Mallawwa. Mallwwa died in the year 1993.

The suit is filed on the premise that item

No.1(a) property, which is purchased by Mallawwa under

the registered sale deed would be inherited only by the

daughters of Mallawwa. On this basis, a declaration is

sought by the grand-daughter of Mallawwa (through her

predeceased daughter) stating that she is the joint owner

- 6 -

of the said property along with other two daughters of

Mallawwa viz., plaintiffs No.2 and 3.

The trial Court has dismissed the suit on the

premise that the plaintiffs are not the nearest heirs of the

deceased Mallawwa. The Trial Court has also dismissed the

suit on the premise that during the life time of Mallawwa

she has transferred the property in the name of her grand

children.

Sri. N.R.Kuppelur, learned counsel appearing

for the appellants would submit that transfer of properties

by Mallawwa during her lifetime through a Vardi is not a

valid transfer in the eye of law, as such, he would submit

that after the demise of Mallawwa, plaintiffs inherited the

property and they are entitled to a declaration of

ownership in respect of item No.1(a) property and they

are entitled for partition in respect of item No.2 and 3,

which Mallawwa inherited from her father.

Sri. Girish Bhat, learned counsel appearing for

respondent Nos.1 to 6 would submit that the property in

- 7 -

the hands of Mallawwa were her absolute properties and

she was capable of transferring the same in favour of her

son. He submits that the mutation entry M.E.No.4099 is

certified with the consent of the mother and the said

mutation entry is not questioned, and this being the

position, the plaintiffs cannot maintain a suit for partition.

He would further submit that the plaintiffs have not

established the collusion between the mother and the son,

and that the plaintiffs have not established the possession

and as such, the suit is rightly dismissed by the Trial

Court.

Considering

the

contentions

raised,

the

following point emerges for consideration:

Whether the Trial Court is justified in dismissing

the suit of the plaintiffs on the premises that the

plaintiffs are not the heirs of Mallawwa?

10. There is no dispute relating to relationship of

the parties. There is also no dispute that Mallawwa

purchased the suit item No.1(a) property under the

- 8 -

registered sale deed in the year 1972. Item Nos.(b) and

(c) are the properties inherited by Mallawwa after the

demise of her father Kariyappa. Mallawwa