Karnataka High Court
Yallavva W/O. Venkat Singh Rajaput vs Babusingh S/O. Thakursingh Rajaput on 22 October, 2020
Author: Ravi.V.Hosmani
Bench: Ravi.V.Hosmani
1 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W
R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3,
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DA TED THIS THE 22 N D DAY OF OCTOBER 2020
PRESEN T
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. K. SUDHINDRARAO
AND
THE HON 'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI V. HOSMAN I
R.F.A. NO. 4044/2013 C/W
R.F.A. NO. 4241/2013,
R.F.A. CR. OB. NO. 111/2013 IN AND
R.F.A. CR. OB. NO. 100010/2014 (PAR/POS)
IN R.F.A. NO . 4044/2013
BETWEEN :
1. SMT. SITABAI W/O NAR AYANSINGH RAJAPUT,
AGE: 63 YEAR S, OCC.: AGRICULTURE &
HOUSEH OLD, R /O R AJAPUT G ALLI,
HAVE RI, TQ & DIST: HAVER I.
2. K UMARI MALATI BAI,
D/O NARAYANSING H RAJAPUT,
AGE: 43 YEAR S, OCC.: AGRICULTURE &
HOUSEH OLD, R /O R AJAPUT G ALLI,
HAVE RI, TQ & DIST: HAVER I.
3. SMT. VINODABAI,
D/O NARAYANSING H RAJAPUT,
W/O SUR AJASINGH BANSI,
AGE: 33 YEAR S, OCC.: AGRICULTURE &
HOUSEH OLD, R /O R AJAPUT G ALLI,
HAVE RI, TQ & DIST: HAVER I.
4. SR I SUNILSINGH @ THAKURSINGH,
S/O NARAYANSINGH RAJAPUT,
AGE: 30 YEAR S, OCC.: AGRICULTURE &
BUSINE SS, R /O RAJAPUT GALLI,
HAVE RI, TQ & DIST: HAVER I.
2 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W
R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3,
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S)
5. K UMARI SHILPABAI,
D/O NARAYANSING H RAJAPUT,
AGE: 27 YEAR S, OCC.: AGRICULTURE &
HOUSEH OLD, R /O R AJAPUT G ALLI,
HAVE RI, TQ & DIST: HAVER I.
6. SMT. PRABHAVATI W/O RAVISINGH K ALWAD ,
OCC.: HOUSEHO LD, R/O SRIR AMPUR ,
DHAR WAD, TQ . & DIST.: DHAR WAD.
- APPE LLANTS
(BY SRI G.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SUR ESH N. KINI, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. SR I BABUSINGH S/O THAKURSINGH RAJAPUT,
AGE: 69 YEAR S, OCC.: RE TIRE D EMPLOYE E &
AGRICULTUR E , R /O HAVERI, NOW AT # 320,
II MAIN, II CR OSS, NAR AYANPUR (SADHANKER I),
DHAR WAD, TQ . & DIST.: DHAR WAD.
2. SR I R. R AMESHSINGH ,
S/O BALAJISINGH R AJAPUT,
AGE: 49 YEAR S, OCC.: TE ACHER ,
R /O GOUVALIG ALLI, HARAPANAHALLI,
TQ .: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST.: DAVANAGERE .
3. SR I R. SUNILSINGH,
S/O BALAJISINGH R AJAPUT,
AGE: 43 YEAR S, OCC.: TEACHER ,
R /O GOUVALIG ALLI, HARAPANAHALLI,
TQ .: HARAPANAHALLI, DIST.: DAVANAGERE .
4. SMT. TRIVENIBAI,
W/O ASHOK SINGH TH AKUR,
AGE: 47 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD ,
R /O JO G, TQ: SAGAR , DIST.: SHIMOGGA,
C/O SR I ASHOK SING H TAKUR,
K EB HIGH SCH OOL TEACHER.
5. SMT. R EKHABAI,
W/O BHAR ATSINGH RAJAPUT,
AGE: 45 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD ,
C/O BH ARATSINGH RAJAPUT,
R /O SR I RENUK A GARAGE,
P.B. ROAD, BE LG AUM, DIST.: BE LGAUM.
6. SMT. K USUMABAI,
3 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W
R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3,
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S)
W/O HANUMANTAPR ASAD SUBE DAR,
AGE: 61 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD ,
R /O: SHIVAGIR I, DHARW AD,
C/O HANUMANTPR ASAD SUBBE DAR.
7. SMT. YALLAVVA,
W/O VE NKATE SHSINGH RAJAPUT
IS KNOWN AS SMT. YALLAVVA,
W/O RAHUTE PPA BE LLAD, AGE: 59 YE ARS,
OCCU: HOUSE HOLD, R /O NE AR HE AD POST OFFICE,
ANNIGE RI, TQ: NAVALGUND,
DIST.: DHAR WAD.
- R ESPOND ENTS
(BY SRI VIJENDR A S. BHIMAKKANAVAR ,
AD VO CATE FOR R1,
SRI SHIVASAI M. PATIL,
AD VO CATE FOR R2 TO R 6,
SRI P.S. MOGALI, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
TH IS REGULAR FIR ST APPE AL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 CPC AGAINST TH E JUDG ME NT AND DECREE
DATED 14.12.2012 PASSE D IN O.S. NO. 17/2011 ON THE
FILE OF TH E ADDL. SE NIOR CIVIL JUD GE , HAVERI & E TC.
IN R.F.A. NO . 4241/2013
BETWEEN :
SMT. YALLAVVA W/O VE NK AT SINGH R AJAPUT
IS K NOW N AS SMT. YALLAVVA,
W/O R AHUTEPPA BELLAD,
AG E: 60 YE ARS, OCC.: HOUSEHO LD WORK,
R/O ANNIGERI, NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE,
TQ: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHAR WAD-580 001.
- APPE LLANT
(BY SRI. S.G. K ADADAK ATTI, AD VO CATE )
AND:
1. BABUSINGH S/O TH AK URSING H RAJAPUT,
AGE: 70 YEAR S, OCC.: RE TD. EMPLOYEE,
AGRICULTUR E , R /O HAVERI, NOW AT
DHAR WAD # 320, II MAIN, II CROSS,
NAR AYANPUR (SADHANAKER I),
DHAR WAD-580 001.
2. SMT. SITABAI W/O NAR AYANSINGH RAJAPUT,
4 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W
R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3,
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S)
AGE: 64 YEAR S, OCC.: AGRICULTURE &
HOUSEH OLD WORK, R/O HAVER I,
R AJAPUT G ALLI, TQ: DIST: HAVERI-581 110.
3. K UM. MALATIBAI D/O NARAYANSINGH R AJAPUT,
AGE: 44 YEAR S, OCC.: AGRICULTURE &
HOUSEH OLD WORK, R/O HAVER I,
R AJAPUT G ALLI, TQ: DIST: HAVERI-581 110.
4. K UM. VINODABAI D/O NARAYANSINGH R AJAPUT,
AGE: 34 YEAR S, OCC.: AGRICULTURE &
HOUSEH OLD WORK, R/O HAVER I,
R AJAPUT G ALLI, TQ: DIST: HAVERI-581 110.
5. SUNILSINGH @ THAKURSINGH,
S/O NARAYANSINGH RAJAPUT,
AGE: 31 YEAR S, OCC.: AGRICULTURE &
BUSINE SS, R /O HAVERI, R AJAPUT GALLI,
TQ : DIST: HAVER I-581 110.
6. K UM. SHILPABAI,
D/O NARAYANSING H RAJAPUT,
AGE: 28 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WOR K,
R /O HAVE RI, RAJAPUT GALLI,
TQ : DIST: HAVER I-581 110.
7. SMT. PRABHAVATI,
W/O RAVISINGH KALAWAD,
AGE: 37 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WOR K,
R /O: DHARWAD, SHR IR AMNAGAR,
DHAR WAD-580 001.
8. R . R AME SHSINGH,
S/O BALAJISINGH R AJAPUT,
AGE: 50 YEAR S, OCC.: TEACHER ,
R /O HARAPANAHALLI, GAVALI GALLI,
TQ : HAR APANAHALLI,
DIST.: DAVANAGERE -577 101.
9. R . SUNILSING H,
S/O BALAJISINGH R AJAPUT,
AGE: 44 YEAR S, OCC.: PRIVATE E MPLOYE E,
R /O HARAPANAHALLI, GAVALI GALLI,
TQ : HAR APANAHALLI,
DIST.: DAVANAGERE -577 101.
10. SMT. TRIVENIBAI,
W/O ASHOK SINGH THAKUR,
5 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W
R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3,
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S)
AGE: 48 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WOR K,
R /O: JOG , TQ : SAGAR,
DIST.: SHIMOGA-577 201,
C/O SR I ASHOK SING H THAKUR,
K .E .B. HIGH SCHOO L TE ACHER .
11. SMT. R EKHABAI,
W/O BHAR ATSINGH RAJAPUT,
AGE: 46 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WOR K,
R /O BELGAUM, DIST: BELG AUM.
C/O BH ARAT SINGH RAJAPUT,
SR I RENUK A GARAG E,
P.B. ROAD, BE LAGAVI-590 001.
12. SMT. K USUMABAI W /O HANUMANTPR ASAD
SUBE DAR, AGE : 62 YEAR S,
OCC.: HOUSEHO LD WO RK ,
R /O: DHARWAD, SHIVAGIRI,
DHAR WAD -580 002.
C/O HANUMANTPR ASAD SUBHE DAR
- R ESPOND ENTS
(BY SRI VIJENDR A S. BHIMAKKANAVAR ,
AD VO CATE FOR R1,
SRI G.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SUR ESH N. KINI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R7,
SRI SHIVASAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE
FOR R 8 TO R 12)
TH IS REGULAR FIR ST APPE AL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 CPC AGAINST TH E JUDG ME NT AND DECREE
DATED 14.12.2012 PASSE D IN O.S. NO. 17/2011 ON THE
FILE OF TH E ADDL. SE NIOR CIVIL JUD GE , HAVERI & E TC.
IN R.F.A. CR. OB . NO. 111/2013
IN R.F.A. NO . 4044/2013
BETWEEN :
BABUSINGH S/O THAK UR SINGH RAJAPUT,
AG E: 72 YE ARS, OCC.: RTD. E MPLOYEE
AND AGRICUTLUR E , R /O HAVERI,
NOW AT NO. 320, II MAIN, II CROSS,
NAR AYANPUR (SADHANKE RI), DHARWAD.
- CR OSS OBJECTOR
(BY SRI. VIJENDRA BHIMAK KANAVAR, ADVOCATE)
6 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W
R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3,
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S)
AND:
1. SMT. SITABAI W/O NAR AYANSINGH RAJAPUT,
AGE: 68 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WOR K,
R /O R AJAPUT G ALLI, HAVE RI,
TQ AND DIST.: HAVERI.
2. K UMARI MALATIBAI,
D/O NARAYANSING H RAJAPUT,
AGE: 45 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WOR K,
R /O R AJAPUT G ALLI, HAVE RI,
TQ AND DIST.: HAVERI.
3. K UMARI VINODABAI,
D/O NARAYANSING H RAJAPUT,
AGE: 35 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WOR K,
R /O R AJAPUT G ALLI, HAVE RI,
TQ AND DIST.: HAVERI.
4. SUNILSINGH @ THAKURSINGH,
S/O NARAYANSINGH RAJAPUT,
AGE: 31 YEAR S,
OCC.: AGRICULTUR E AND BUSINESS,
R /O R AJAPUT G ALLI, HAVE RI,
TQ AND DIST.: HAVERI.
5. K UMARI SHILPABAI,
D/O NARAYANSING H RAJAPUT,
AGE: 28 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WOR K,
R /O R AJAPUT G ALLI, HAVE RI,
TQ AND DIST.: HAVERI.
6. SMT. PRABHAVATI,
W/O RAVISINGH KALWAD,
AGE: 37 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WOR K,
R /O R AJAPUT G ALLI, HAVE RI,
TQ AND DIST.: HAVERI.
7. R . R AME SHSINGH,
S/O BALAJISINGH R AJAPUT,
AGE: 50 YEAR S, OCC.: TEACHER ,
R /O GAVALI GALLI, HARAPANAHALLI,
DIST: DAVANAGERE.
8. R . SUNILSING H S/O BALAJISINGH RAJAPUT,
AGE: 45 YEAR S, OCC.: PRIVATE SERVICE,
R /O GAVALI GALLI, HARAPANAHALLI,
DIST: DAVANAGERE.
7 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W
R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3,
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S)
9. SMT. TRIVENIBAI W/O ASHOKSING H THAK UR,
AGE: 48 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WOR K,
R /O ASHOK SINGH THAKUR,
K EB HIGH SCH OOL TEACHER, JOB,
TQ : SAGAR , D IST.: SHIMO GGA.
10. SMT. R EKHABAI W/O BHARATSINGH R AJAPUT,
AGE: 47 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WOR K,
R /O SR I RENUK A GARAGE, P.B. R OAD,
BELGAUM, DIST.: BE LGAUM.
11. SMT. K USUMABAI,
W/O HANUMANTPR ASAD SUBE DAR,
AGE: 63 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WOR K,
R /O SHIVAGIRI, DHARWAD, DIST.: DH ARW AD ,
C/O HANAMANTPR ASAD SUBHE DAR .
12. SMT. YALLAVVA W/O VENKATESHSINGH
IS KNOWN AS SMT. YALLAVVA,
W/O RAHUTE PPA BE LLAD ,
AGE: 61 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WOR K,
R /O NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE, ANNIG ER I,
TQ : NAVALG UND, D IST.: DHAR WAD.
- R ESPOND ENTS
(BY SRI G.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SUR ESH N. KINI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R6,
SRI SHIVASAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R11,
SRI P.G. MOG ALI, ADVOCATE FO R R12)
TH IS RE GULAR FIRST APPEAL CR OSS OBJE CTION IS
FILED UNDER ORDER 41 R ULE 22 CPC AGAINST THE
JUDG ME NT AND DECREE DATE D 14.12.2012 PASSE D IN
O.S. NO . 17/2011 ON TH E FILE OF THE ADD L. SE NIOR
CIVIL JUDGE , HAVERI & E TC.
IN R.F.A. CR. OB . NO. 100010/2014
IN R.F.A. NO . 4044/2013
BETWEEN :
1. SR I R. R AMESH SING H,
S/O BALAJISINGH R AJAPUT,
AGE: 50 YEAR S, OCC.: TEACHER ,
R /O GOUVALIG ALLI, HARAPANAHALLI,
TQ : HAR APANAHALLI, DIST: DAVANAGER E.
2. SR I R. SUNILSINGH,
8 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W
R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3,
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S)
S/O BALAJISINGH R AJAPUT,
AGE: 44 YEAR S, OCC.: TEACHER ,
R /O GOUVALIG ALLI, HARAPANAHALLI,
TQ : HAR APANAHALLI, DIST: DAVANAGER E.
3. SMT. TRIVENIBAI W/O ASHOK SINGH THAK UR ,
AGE: 48 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD ,
R /O JO G, TQ: SHIMOGGA,
C/O SR I ASHOK SING H TAKUR,
K EB HIGH SCH OOL TEACHER.
4. SMT. R EKHABAI,
W/O BHAR ATSINGH RAJAPUT,
AGE: 46 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD ,
R /O BHARATE SHINGH RAJAPUT,
R /O SR I RENUK A GARAGE,
P.B. ROAD, BE LG AUM, DIST.: BE LGAUM.
5. SMT. K USUMABAI,
W/O HANUMANT PR ASAD SUBE DAR,
AGE: 63 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD ,
R /O SHIVAGIRI, DHARWAD.
- CR OSS OBJECTORS
(BY SRI. SHIVASAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SR I BABUSINGH S/O THAKURSINGH R AJAPUT,
AGE: 70 YEAR S, OCC.: RE TIRE D EMPLOYE E &
AGRICULTUR E , R /O HAVERI, NOW AT # 320,
II MAIN, II CR OSS, NAR AYANPUR (SADHANKER I),
DHAR WAD, TQ : & DIST: DHARWAD.
2. SMT. SITABAI W/O NAR AYANSINGH RAJAPUT,
AGE: 64 YEAR S, OCC.: AGRICULTURE AND
HOUSEH OLD WORK, R/O HAVER I,
R AJPUT G ALLI, TQ & DIST: H AVER I.
3. K UMARI MALATIBAI,
D/O NARAYANSING H RAJAPUT,
AGE: 44 YEAR S, OCC.: AGRICULTURE
AND HOUSE HOLD WOR K, R /O HAVER I,
R AJPUT G ALLI, TQ & DIST.: HAVE RI.
4. K UMARI VINODABAI NAR AYANSINGH
R AJAPUT, AGE : 34 YEAR S, OCC.: AGR ICULTURE
AND HOUSE HOLD WOR K, R /O HAVER I,
9 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W
R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3,
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S)
R AJPUT G ALLI, TQ & DIST. H AVER I.
5. SUNILSINGH @ THAKURSINGH,
S/O NARAYANSINGH RAJAPUT,
AGE: 30 YEAR S, OCC.: AGRICULTURE
AND HOUSE HOLD WOR K, R /O HAVER I,
R AJPUT G ALLI, TQ & DIST. H AVER I.
6. K UMARI SHILPABAI D/O NARAYANSINGH
R AJAPUT, AGE : 28 YEAR S,
OCC.: AGRICULTUR E AND HOUSE HOLD WORK ,
R /O HAVE RI, RAJPUT GALLI,
TQ & D IST. HAVERI.
7. SMT. PRABHAVATI W/O RAVISINGH K ALWAD ,
AGE: 37 YEAR S, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD ,
R /O SR IR AMNAGAR , D HARW AD,
TQ : & DIST: DHARWAD.
8. SMT. YALLAVVA W/O VENKATSINGH
R AJAPUT, IS KNOWN AS SMT. YALLAVVA,
W/O RAHUTE PPA BE LLAD ,
AGE: 60 YEAR S, OCCU: HOUSEHO LD,
R /O NEAR HEAD POST OFFICE,
ANNIGE RI, TQ: NAVALGUND,
DIST.: DHAR WAD.
- R ESPOND ENTS
(BY SRI VIJENDR A S. BHIMAKKANAVAR ,
AD VO CATE FOR R1,
SRI G.S. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SUR ESH N. KINI,
AD VO CATE FOR R2 TO R 7,
SRI P.G. MOG ALI, ADVOCATE FO R R8)
TH IS RE GULAR FIRST APPEAL CR OSS OBJE CTION IS
FILED UNDER ORDER 41 R ULE 22 CPC AGAINST THE
JUDG ME NT AND DECREE DATE D 14.12.2012 PASSE D IN
O.S. NO . 17/2011 ON TH E FILE OF THE ADD L. SE NIOR
CIVIL JUDGE , HAVERI & E TC.
TH ESE RE GULAR FIR ST APPE ALS AND R EGULAR
FIR ST APPE AL CR OSS OBJE CTIONS CO MING ON FOR
FINAL HE AR ING TH IS D AY, N.K .SUDHINDRA RAO, J.,
DELIVERED TH E FOLLOW ING:
10 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W
R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3,
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S)
JUDGMENT
R.F.A. No. 4044/2013 is filed by Smt. Sita Bai wife of Narayansingh Rajaput, who is defendant No.1 before the trial Court and others. Their prayer is to set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2012 passed by the learned Addl. Sr. Civil Judge, Haveri (for short 'trial Court') in O.S. No.17/2011.
R.F.A. No. 4241/2013 is filed by Smt. Yallavva wife of Venkat Singh Rajaput. Her prayer is to set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2012 passed by the trial Court, in O.S.No.17/2011.
R.F.A.CrOb No.111/2013 is filed by Babusingh son of Thakursingh Rajaput, the plaintiff in the trial Court. He seeks for modification of the judgment wherein he claims for half share in the suit schedule A and B properties.
Insofar as R.F.A Crob No.100010/2014 is concerned, it is filed by Rameshsingh, Sunilsingh, 11 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) Smt. Trivenibai, Smt.Rekhabai and Smt. Kusumabai, who are defendants 7 to 11.
2. The substance of the pleadings of the plaintiff is that, propositus-common ancestor is one Thakursingh Rajaput. The genealogical tree furnished by the plaintiffs is as under:
T h a k u rs i n gh (died on 27.05.1974) N a ra y a n s i n gh B a b u s in gh S it a ra m s in gh V e n k a t s i n gh (P lain t if f ) (w e nt in
-- Sitabai a do pt io n ) (Deft.No.1) K a s h ib a i K us um a b a i (D e f t . 1 1 ) M a la t ib a i V in o d a b a i S u n i ls in gh S h ilp a Prabhavati (D e f t . N o . 2 ) (D e f t . N o . 3 ) (D e f t . N o . 4 ) (D e f t . N o . 5 ) (D ef t . N o . 6 ) Y a l la v v a (D e f t . N o . 1 2 ) R a m e s h s in gh S u n i ls in gh Tr iv e n i b a i Rekhabai (D e f t . N o . 7 ) (D e f t . N o . 8 ) (D e f t . N o . 9 ) (D e f t . N o . 1 0 ) It is stated that Thakursingh died on 27.05.1974. Narayansingh, Babusingh, Sitaramsingh and Venkatsingh are his sons.
Similarly, Kashibai and Kusumabai are daughters. Among the said children, Sitaramsingh went in adoption ceasing his relationship with the family.
12 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) The children of Narayansingh and first defendant-Seetabai are Malatibai, Sunilsingh, Shilpa and Prabhavati, who are respectively defendants 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
Out of the remaining, defendant No.1-Sitabai is the wife of Narayansingh Rajaput, Defendant No.2 (relationship disputed), Kashibai has four children who are respectively defendants 7, 8, 9 and 10.
The claim of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the common ancestor of the joint family is one Mr. Thakursingh, who died on 27.05.1974, he headed the joint family and thereafter the said children of Thakursingh continued in the joint family, however, among the sons, Sitaramsingh was given in adoption. Further details not furnished. Thus in the group of Thakursingh total members who are reckoned are 5 in number, namely, Narayansingh, Babusingh, Venkatsingh, Kashibai and Kusumbai. Defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are 13 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) stated to be the branch belonging to Narayansingh, the husband of defendant No.1.
Insofar as Venkatsingh is concerned, he is the son of Thakursingh, however, defendant No.12 was made party to the suit as she was falsely claiming as the wife of Venkatsingh. Kashibai, daughter of Thakursingh, she is dead and survived by her children, Rameshsingh, Sunilsingh, Trivenibai and Rekhabai, who are defendants 7, 8, 9 and 10 respectively. The suit schedule properties consist of two items mentioned in the schedule. Item No.A is landed property to the extent of six acres and five guntas in Sy. No. 29/A/2 situate at Haveri village, Haveri Taluk and Haveri District. Item No.B consist of three items of properties, i.e., property bearing No. 147, 151 and 154, all the three are residential properties situate at Haveri town.
3. The claim of the plaintiff is that the 'A' schedule property is a granted property to the joint 14 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) family and all of them are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same.
Item No.B, consists three residential properties which are stated to be acquired by Narayansingh from the funds of the joint family. Thus the said properties also belong to joint family of the plaintiff and the defendants as stated above.
The plaintiff deny the relationship between defendant No.12-Smt. Yallavva wife of Venkatsingh. The contesting defendant is the branch of Naryansingh. Narayansingh is no more. His wife is the first defendant. Defendants 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the children.
Defendant No.1 in main denied claim of the plaintiff attributing that the suit is misconceived, based on false ground and suffers from lack of cause of action. It is further contended that, insofar as 'A' schedule property is concerned, it is a separate property. Narayansingh son of Thakursingh Rajaput had terminated his relationship with the family 40-45 years earlier to 15 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) date of filing the written statement, (date of written statement is 29.06.2011) and permanently resided in the city of Dharwad and also was an employee in LIC. He had sufficient resources to buy property from his separate income without any contribution from his father's family or his siblings.
It is also contended that 'B' schedule property was granted by Land Tribunal, Haveri as per Ex.P.7 wherein the Land Tribunal issued Form No. 10 in response to Form No.7 in favour of Narayansingh Rajaput son of Thakursingh Rajaput. The learned trial Judge, in this connection, framed as many as 11 issues that are as under:
ISSUES
1. Whe ther plain tif f proves that, himself and def t.
No.1 to 6 are jo in t owner and join t p ossessor of suit schedu le proper ties?
2. Whe ther plain tiff proves that, the def t. No. 12 is leg al wedded wi fe of deceased Rahu teppa Bellad?
3. Whe ther plain tiff proves th at, su it schedule properties are the ir ancestr al proper tie s?
4. Whe ther def t. N o. 1 to 5 prove that, th e plain tiff, K ashib ai and Kusum ab ai were relinquished the ir 16 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) righ t in su i t schedule A property in f avour of deceased N ar ayans ingh?
5. Whe ther def t. No. 1 to 5 prove th at, the L and Tribunal, H averi, was granted the occupanc y righ t in respec t of sui t schedule A property in favour of N ar ayansingh in indiv idual cap ac i ty?
6. Whe ther def t. No. 1 to 5 prove th at, the sui t properties C TS No. 148, 149 and 150 are the self-acquired proper ties of N aray ans ingh?
7. Whe ther def t. N o. 1 to 5 prove that, they h ave perfected their ti tl e in respec t of suit properties by way of adverse possession?
8. Whe ther def t. No. 1 to 5 prove th at, the pl aintiff has p aid insufficient C our t f ee?
9. Whe ther pl ain tif f is en ti tle the relief of par tition and separ ate possession?
10. Whe ther p lain tif f is enti tled the 1/2 th share in suit schedu le proper ties?
11. What order or decree?
- - -
4. Learned trial Judge was accommodated with the oral evidence of PW1-Babusingh, i.e., plaintiff and documentary evidence as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.20 were marked which are as under:
Ex.P.1 - ROR Extract
Ex.P.2 to 4- CTS extracts
Ex.P.5 - Form No.7
Ex.P.6 - Reply of the Narayansingh
Ex.P.7 - Order of Land Tribunal, Haveri.
Ex.P.8 - Copy of appeal memo
17 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W
R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3,
R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) Ex.P.9 - Copy of vakalat Ex.P.10 - Order of Assistant Commissioner, Haveri.
Ex.P.11 - Sale deed
Ex.P.12 - Postal receipt
Ex.P.13&14- ROR extracts
Ex.P.15 to 19- Mutation Extracts Ex.P.20 - C.C. of order of Hon'ble High Court On behalf of the defendants oral evidence of DW1- Kusumabai and DW2-Kumari Malati was recorded and documents as per Ex.D.1 to D.34 were marked which are as under:
Ex.D.1 - RTS Rev. no. 8/2003
Ex.D.2&3 - ROR extracts
Ex.D.4 - Form No. 10
Ex.D.5 - Mutation extract
Ex.D.6 - Sale deed
Ex.D.7 to 12- Land revenue receipts Ex.D.13 to 23- Tax paid bills Ex.D.24 to 27- Receipts Ex.D.28 - Application Ex.D.29 - AOD Ex.D.30 - Acknowledgement Ex.D.31 - property extract Ex.D.32 - ROR extract Ex.D.33 & 34- Mutation extracts
- - -
After the conclusion of the trial, learned trial Judge decreed the suit partly in favour of the plaintiff and granted share as under:
18 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) "Suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs.
It is hereby declared that, plaintif f is entitled 7/20 t h share in the suit schedule A property and half share in suit schedule B properties.
Def t. No. 7 to 10 are en titled 3/20 t h share in suit schedule A property and def t. No. 11 is also entitled 3/20 t h share in suit schedule A property.
The partition of suit schedule properties shall be aff ected as per Sec. 54 of Karnataka amended CPC.
Draw preliminary decree accordingly."
5. Learned counsel Sri G.S. Bhat appearing for defendants 1 to 6 submits that there was no joint family possessing properties among the legal heirs and survivors of Thakursingh Rajaput. Narayansingh, husband of defendant No.1 was granted item no. 1 of the schedule property, agricultural land stated above, exclusively for Narayansingh Rajaput which is confirmed by Ex.D.1 which is the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
19 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S)
6. Learned counsel further submits that there was no contribution of any kind by the plaintiff or other siblings of Narayansingh in the earning of the joint family property. It was also submitted that either for acquisition or maintenance or agricultural operation, there was no nexus by the plaintiff or any of the family members of his siblings. The first item of the 'A' schedule property was clearly the separate property of Narayansingh as the same was granted in consideration of his occupancy over the same. Further he would submit that 'B' schedule property consisted three residential sites at Haveri, they were earned through rigorous hard work of the said Narayansingh alone and they were purchased. These properties have no nexus to the joint family.
7. Learned counsel would further submit that admissions in the cross-examination of PW1 and the oral evidence of DW1 point their fingers that there existed no joint family or its properties. 'A' 20 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) and 'B' schedule properties mentioned in the plaint are the separate property.
Insofar as defendant No.12-Smt.Yallavva is concerned, Sri S.G.Kadadakatti would submit that the plaintiff and the other defendants are in collusion to deprive the legal and legitimate share of this defendant as this defendant No.12 is the legally wedded wife of Venkatsingh son of Thakursingh Rajaput stands in equal footing with that of any other member of Thakursingh Rajaput and submits that earlier she had preferred W.P. No. 12575/2007 wherein she had challenged revenue entries. However, that was disposed off with a direction to agitate before the proper forum.
8. Insofar as R.F.A. Cr. Ob. No. 111/2013 is concerned which is a cross objection in R.F.A. No. 4044/2013, learned counsel Sri Vijendra Bheemakkannavar submits that the cross objection is preferred by the plaintiff Babusingh by way of cross objection against R.F.A. No. 4044/'2013 21 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) however challenging the finding regarding granting of share in 'A' schedule to the daughters of Thakursingh Rajput.
9. The contention of learned counsel is that insofar as grant of land by Land Reforms Tribunal is concerned, it was granted under Section 2(12) wherein 'Family' was defined and submits that the married daughters are not entitled for share and the defendant No.12-Yallavva is not at all the wife of Venkatsingh. Thus the plaintiff is entitled for a share at par with Narayansingh and entitled for half share in the schedule property and further contends that, admittedly properties are ancestral properties and Rule of Inheritance exclude the daughters. He would specifically contends that the daughters are not coparceners as on the date of filing of the suit or on the date of filing written statement.
10. Insofar as R.F.A. Cr. Ob. No. 100010/2014 is concerned, the cross objectors are from the branch 22 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) of Kashibai and Kusumbai, being the daughters of Thakursingh Rajput. Learned counsel Sri Shivasai M. Patil claim equal share by virtue of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma V. Rakesh Sharma and others (2020 (3) KCCR 1993 SC)).
11. The oral evidence of the plaintiff has been to the extent of claiming of the schedule property to be the joint family properties and equal share with that of Narayansingh, husband of defendant No.1. In cross-examination much of the portion is regarding separate nature of the properties belonging to Narayansingh Rajaput and insofar as the defendant No.1 is concerned, she is the wife of late Narayansingh and her branch is upto defendant No.6. She asserts that the schedule property belong to her husband as the separate owner in possession. The plaintiff or the other defendants do not have right over it.
23 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S)
12. Insofar as the branch of Kashibai is concerned, it is contended that she stands on equal footing to that of a coparcener and on par with Kusumbai daughter of Thakursingh.
13. The schedule properties are two in number, as 'A' schedule property forms agricultural land and 'B' schedule property consists of three items of residential property in the city of Haveri.
14. The bone of contention between the plaintiff and the defendants is regarding the nature of property. The defendant No.16 vehemently opposed calling the schedule property as joint family property and on the other hand, plaintiff and defendants 7 to 12 asserted the schedule property to be the joint family property.
15. Regard being had to the fact that there is an internal difference in respect of defendant No.12- Yallavva who claims to be the wife of Venkatsingh that is denied by the plaintiff. In this connection, 24 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) we find one of the issues to be on the plaintiff, as to the effect, whether plaintiff proves that defendant No.12 is the wife of Rahuteppa Bellad and for the sake of property she has changed the name of husband?
16. Except agitating in the Writ Petition before this Court against the revenue entry and after disposal of the said writ petition as stated above, she neither appeared before the Court nor prosecuted the same. As such, it is an invitational pleadings made by the plaintiff that stops at the beginning itself.
17. The next one is regarding the nature of properties. Item No.1 of the schedule property is falsely claimed as a separate property, as this landed property was granted under the provisions of Land Reforms Act in response to filing of Form No.7 by Narayansingh and Form No. 10 was issued. Form No.7 is marked as Ex.P.5 and the order of the Land Tribunal is marked as Ex.P.7. In this 25 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) connection, the contention of defendants 1 to 6 is that it was separately granted to Narayansingh without any nexus to the joint family, in fact, the same never existed.
18. In this connection it is necessary to focus on some of the contents of form No.7. No doubt, it is filed by Narayansingh, husband of defendant No.1. In the said form No.7 while furnishing details, it is stated that the cultivation from the side of the petitioner therein was 40 years as on the date of filing of the petition which is on 14.08.1974. In this connection, it is necessary to mention the year of death of Narayansingh, i.e., 2009.
19. Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submitted that age of Narayansingh at the time of his death was 70 years, reckoning that as the age at the time of death, during 1974 he would have been aged 35 years. Taking that reckoning into consideration, if the possession claimed by the plaintiff was 40 26 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) years during 1974 when the cultivation started as tenant, it pre-supposes it was five years earlier to the birth of Narayansingh.
20. Regard being had to the fact that even if he has started cultivating the land at the age of 12 or helping the elders nearly 17 years, the land was cultivated by elders of his family. Thus, it cannot be considered to be a sole effort. On the other hand, it pre-supposes that it was a joint family cultivation. Further, it is also necessary to mention, in Form No.7 there is a clear cut mention that Narayansingh was cultivating the property and earlier to him his father was cultivating the same and the Form No.7 was filed not in an individual capacity but as the manager of the family.
21. In this connection, whether Thakursingh Rajaput was alive or not at that time for the purpose of filing an application for tenancy and was represented by Narayansingh cannot be accepted legally.
27 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S)
22. It is necessary to mention even in Ex.P.7 when the Land Reforms Tribunal identified the rights of tenant, no dispute by the Landlord while granting occupancy rights for the cultivation was effected by all the brothers or the sons of Thakursingh Rajaput, it was not the case of sole tenancy. Thus it stands exposed that the defendant No.1 did not represent true state of affairs in respect of the ownership or possession of the schedule item no.1. In the circumstances of the case, the salary of Rs.85/- as an employee, it is stated that Narayansingh was getting Rs.85/- per month during 1964 and Rs.220/- during 1974. The properties purchased under the sale deed marked as Ex.D.6 dated 13.06.1977 in the name of the said Narayansingh Rajaput for a cash consideration of Rs.2,000/-.
23. In this connection, an initial presumption of jointness is established and non representation of true state of affairs by the defendants 1 to 6 is also 28 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) established. Further, there are no documents or materials and circumstances to hold or presume that item no.2 of the schedule property form exclusive property of the defendants 1 to 6 earlier belonged to Narayansingh Rajaput.
24. Thus we do not have any hesitation to hold that item no.2 of the schedule property also forms joint family property. At the cost of repetition in a normal circumstance which includes present one grant of landed property by the Tribunal recognizing rights of occupation enures to the benefit of the family and not exclusively to a single person who represents the family in the proceedings before the Tribunal.
25. By this time, it is established that item no.1 mentioned in the 'A' schedule was capable of yielding income from agriculture and in the circumstances item No.2 was a property purchased from the joint family income. The value of the said property at the time of purchase is Rs.2,000/- in a 29 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) joint family which is creator of status under Hindu Law cannot be equated to a partnership firm or a Joint Stock Company or other enterprise. The right of a property is designated by birth. It would be undivided right in the beginning when the property enjoyed in common. In other words, when once partition is affected, separate possession of each of the party gets identified for effecting common rights of enjoyment. It is a process where joint possession and enjoyment comes to a halt when separate possession and enjoyment come into existence.
26. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the apex Court reported in AIR 1969 SC 1076 (Mudi Gowda Gowdappa Sankh V. Ram Chandra Ravagowda Sankh) wherein it is held as under:
"On the question of cer tain property being joint or not, held, f ollo wing Annal Swami v. Survava Mur ti, (ILR 1948 MAD 440) that there is no presumption that merely because the f amily is 30 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) joint they have joint property. So, the person alleging the proper ty to be coparcenary proper ty must prove it. But, if it is sho wn that there was a nucleus of the coparcenary proper ty then any acquisition by its aid by a member is joint proper ty. In such an event the person claiming the property to be self - acquired has to prove it to be so."
27. In this connection, the entire family originally headed by Thakursingh Rajaput are entitled to succeed to the shares in equal proportion per branch not per stripes.
28. There is no evidence to suggest the daughters, i.e., Kusumbai or Kashibai, had relinquished their rights in favour of other brothers. Thus, the contention of the plaintiff to the said extent cannot be accepted.
29. In the circumstances, the children of Thakursingh Rajaput are reckoned as under:
Among the children, Sitaramsingh is excluded as he was given in adoption and has terminated 31 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) relationship of the natural family of Thakursingh Rajaput and others will be defendants 1 to 6 form branch headed by Narayansingh Rajaput being entitled for 1/6 t h share. Babusingh, the plaintiff follows Narayansingh and gets 1/6 t h share for him.
30. Insofar as Venkatsingh is concerned, he is reported dead and defendant No.12 has not placed any material nor even written statement or oral evidence to corroborate her claim. Thus, the total branches are considered to be four. Among them, branch of Narayansingh is entitled for 1/4 t h share, branch of Babusingh is entitled for 1/4 t h share, branch of Kashibai is entitled for 1/4 t h share, branch of Kusumbai is entitled for 1/4 t h share.
31. In this connection, learned counsel for plaintiff submitted that the married daughters of Thakursingh Rajput cannot claim equal share in the joint family, more particularly, they are not entitled for a share in the tenanted lands and 32 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) relied upon the decision in Vineeta Sharma's case.
32. The provision of law and rule of Land Reforms Act defined family u/s 2 (12) but when once the land came into the joint family it remains in the joint possession and enjoyment of the entire family but when divided in the partition all the entitled persons including the daughters, whether married or unmarried, are having a share.
33. Further claim of the plaintiff regarding right of daughters regarding ancestral property as per Sec.6, is not available since they did not have coparcenary interest, by this time the legal position is clarified in the recent judgment of the apex Court in Vineeta Sharma's case supra, as such, daughters stand neck to neck, in equal, to that of a son.
34. Thus there is no going back from granting 1/4 t h share each for all the daughters. However, 33 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) 1/4 t h share of Narayansingh shall be divided amongst defendants 2 to 6 in the ratio of 1/24; Babusingh-plaintiff would be entitled to ¼. Similarly, Kashibai being represented by defendants 7 to 10 be entitled for 1/4 t h together and amongst them 1/16 share; Kusumbai is entitled for 1/4 t h share.
35. In the circumstances of the case, presence of item no.1 of the land itself would be a income yielding factor. Moreover, we have already held that the schedule 'A' property is totally joint family property.
For the reasons morefully assigned above we pass the following order.
ORDER R.F.A. No. 4044/2013, R.F.A. No. 4241/2013 and R.F.A. Crob No.111/2013 are dismissed. R.F.A. Crob No.100010/2014 is allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is 34 R . F . A . N O . 4 0 4 4 / 20 13 C/ W R . F . A . N O . 4 24 1/ 20 1 3, R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 1 1/ 2 0 1 3 I N A N D R . F . A . CR . O B . N O . 1 0 0 0 1 0/ 2 01 4 ( P A R / P O S) erroneous to the aforesaid extent and it is modified to the extent mentioned in paragraph 34 above.
SD JUDGE SD JUDGE bvv