Recognition of 'No Marriage' between parties of different religions precludes rights to property succession, emphasizing strict adherence to marriage laws under Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

JUDGMENT :

HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012 passed in O.S.No.267/2010 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi, 1hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’ for short, thereby, the suit filed by the plaintiffs is dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court.

PLAINT:

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property was granted by the Government to one Bheemappa S/o Basappa Pujar on 27.04.1975 by M.E.No.2202 and he has wife by name Smt. Khatunbi and the said Bheemappa Pujar and Khatunbi died issueless. Bheemappa Pujar had one brother namely Ramappa Pujar and was cultivating the suit land together by planting full trees etc. Ramappa Pujar was also expired leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.10 to 14 as his legal heirs. Thus, the plaintiffs are Class-II legal heirs.

4. Further it is pleaded that, after the death of Bheemappa Pujar, his brother Ramappa Pujar was legally entitled to right over the suit schedule property by way of succession as per the Hindu Law as nearest relation with the deceased Bheemappa Pujar. Defendant Nos.1 to 9 and their father Shabbuddin S/o. Hasansab Naikar got an entry in the record of right of the suit schedule property by M.E.No.2527 which was certified on 03.02.1983 in collusion with the revenue authorities without any legal rights.

5. It is submitted that this entry mutating the name of defendant Nos.1 to 9, has not created any right over the suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 9. Defendant No.7 created false entry on 18.02.2008 in respect of Sy.No.174/01 (part of suit schedule property) by way of registered Will stated to have been executed by the deceased Khatunbi Bheemappa Pujar, but in fact there is no such Will executed by the deceased Khatunbi Bheemappa Pujar and defendant No.7 has no right over the suit schedule property.

6. The plaintiffs came to know that defendant Nos.1 to 8 have filed the suit in O.S.No.711/2008 against defendant No.9 before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hubballi, for partition by suppressing the material facts and acquisition of the right in the suit schedule property and the said suit in O.S.No.711/2008 was decreed. Therefore, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit against defendant Nos.1 to 9 for declaration that the plaintiffs are legal heirs of the original grantee Bheemappa S/o. Basappa Pujar and are entitled to claim the right in the suit schedule property by way of succession. Thus, defendant Nos.1 to 9 have no right in whatsoever manner in the suit schedule property; hence, filed the suit for declaration and for permanent injunction.

7. The cause of action pleaded to file the suit that in the month of September 2010, the plaintiffs came to know that the suit filed by defendant Nos.1 to 8 for partition was decreed and therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration to declare that the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of the deceased Bheemappa S/o. Basappa Pujar; as such defendant Nos.1 to 9 have no right in whatsoever manner in the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs also prayed to declare that the registered Will executed by the deceased Khatunbi in favour of defendant No.7 is bogus and for consequential relief of permanent injunction against defendant Nos.1 to 9.

WRITTEN STATEMENT:

8. In pursuance to summons to defendant Nos.1 to9, they have appeared through Advocate. Defendant Nos