Legal heirs are entitled to partition of joint family properties, and an invalid adoption claim does not exclude them from inheritance rights.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ)

The plaintiffs 1 to 4 in O.S.No.370/2016 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’) have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2019 by which their suit for partition and separate possession was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and easy understanding, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs while the respondents were the defendants 1 to 4 before the Trial Court.

3. The suit in O.S.No.370/2016 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs’ share in the suit schedule properties. For the sake of immediate reference, the genealogy of the plaintiffs and the defendants, as mentioned in the plaint, is extracted below:

Somappa Siddappa Pawar (Propositus)(dead) Kashawwa (1^st wife) Gangawwa (2^nd wife)(Dead issueless)

Lacchawwa (daughter) (dead)

Arjuna (husband) (dead)

Khandoba (son)

Chandrawwa (1^st wife)(Dead) Anasuya (2^nd wife)(Pltff-1)

Yallawwa (daughter) (D-1)

Ramkrishna @ Vinodh Sakkubai Shrikant (Pltf-2) (Pltf-3) (Pltf-4)

Jyothiba (D-4) (husband)

Basawaraj (D-2) (son) Somappa (D-3)(son)

4. (i) The suit was filed in respect of 5 items of agricultural lands situate in Amminabhavi village and 3 items of residential properties situate in Amminabhavi village. The plaintiffs contended that the propositus of the family expired long back leaving behind his two wives viz., Smt.Kashawwa and Smt.Gangawwa. Smt.Kashawwa died leaving behind her only daughter Smt.Lachchawwa. Smt.Lachchawwa and her husband Sri.Arjuna died leaving behind their son Sri.Khandoba. The said Khandoba also died leaving behind him the defendant No.1- Smt.Yallawwa, from his first wife Smt.Chandrawwa and his second wife Smt.Anasuya i.e. the plaintiff No.1 and her three children i.e., plaintiffs No.2 to 4. The defendants No.2 and 3 are the children of defendant No.1, while defendant No.4 is the husband of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs contended that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 were members of a joint family and were cultivating the suit properties jointly. They claimed that the agricultural properties at suit item Nos.(a) to (d) of schedule ‘A’ were ancestral properties of the family, while the property at suit item No.(e) was purchased out of the joint family funds in the name of defendant No.1. They claimed that the defendants No.2 to 4 were not concerned with the suit schedule properties in any manner whatsoever.3

(ii) They contended that the suit item Nos.(c) and (d) in Schedule 'A' i.e. Block No.355, measuring 3 acre 11 guntas and Block No.743 measuring 6 acres 10 guntas both situated at Amminabhavi village were granted by the Land Tribunal, Dharwad in favour of Smt.Gangawwa i.e., the second wife of the propositus. Accordingly, mutation entries in M.E.No.9199 and 9503 were entered in her name. They contended that the defendant No.4 with an intention to grab the suit item Nos.(a), (b) and (c) of schedule 'A', colluded with the revenue officials and got his name entered in respect of the said properties claiming to be the adopted son of late Smt.Gangawwa and the propositus-Sri.Somappa. The plaintiffs claimed that Smt.Gangawwa did not adopt the defendant No.4 and that she had no right to take him in adoption. It was also contended that the defendant No.4 had falsely claimed that Smt.Gangawwa had executed a deed of adoption dated 02.12.1980 acknowledging that defendant