Karnataka High Court
Sri Manjunathagouda vs Shankaragouda Ramagouda Renakegoudar on 20 February, 2017
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNA TAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED TH IS THE 20 T H DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUS TICE S.N. SA TYANARAYANA
R.F .A.NO.620/2004
BETWEEN:
1. SRI MANJUNA THAGOUDA
S/O SURESHAGOUDA @
JAGANNATHAGOUDA RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: 28 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI
2. KUMARI REKHA D/O SURESHAGOUDA
JAGANNATHAGOUDA RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: 18 YEARS , OC: NIL
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI
3. KUMAR KANCHANAGOUDA
S/O SURESHAGOUDA @
JAGGANNATHAGOUDA RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: 16 YEARS , OCC: NIL
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI
4. BASANAGOUDA S/O VISHWANATHAGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR @ GOVINDAGOUDAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRI/PUJARIKI
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI.
5. SMT.CHANNAWWA W/O SURESHAGOUDA @
JAGANNATHAGOUDA RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: 44 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI
... APPELLANTS.
(BY SRI R.M.KULKARNI, ADVOCA TE.)
2
AND:
1. SHANKARAGOUDA RAMAGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR @ GOVINDAGOUDAR
AGE: 30 YEARS ,
R/O. BADAMI, TQ : BAGALKO T
2. VEERENDRAGOUDA RAMANAGAOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR @ GOVINDA GOUDAR
AGE: 27 YEARS ,
R/O. BADAMI, TQ : BAGALKO T
3. SUWARNA W/O TRAPPA MUNDARAGI
AGE: 50 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI.
SINCE DECEASED, BY HER L.RS.,
3(A) IRAPPA S/O .MALLAPPA MUNDARAGI
AGE: 65 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3(B) MALLAPPA S/O.IRAPPA MUNDARAGI
AGE: 45 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3(C) RENAPPA S/O .IRAPPA MUNDARAGI
AGE: 42 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
3(D) MANJUNATH S/O .IRAPPA MUNDARAGI
AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
4. BHAGEERATI W/O MADAMOHAN MANDOLLI
AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O. 22, HOSAPALYA,
AT POST: BOHAMANHALLI, BANGALORE
5. YELLAPPAGOUDA S/O SHIVANAGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR @ GOVINDAGOUDAR
3
AGE: 65 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE
R/O. UGARGOL, NOW R/O. BALLUR
TQ: NA VALAGUND, DIS T: DHARWAD
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.,
5(A) SMT.LAXMIBAI W/O.YALLAPPAGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: 70 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BALLUR, TQ: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
5(B) SMT.MANJULA D/O.YALLAPPAGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: 50 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. BALLUR, TQ: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
5(C) FAKEERGOUDS S/O.YALLAPPAGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: 48 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O. BALLUR, TQ: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
5(D) MALLIKARJUNGOUDA S/O.YALLAPPAGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: 46 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O. BALLUR, TQ: NAVALGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
5(E) BASAMMA W/O.APPASAHEB PA TIL
AGE: 44 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. UMRANI, TQ : CH IKODI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
5(F) MAHADEVI W/O.SHIVANNA YANGADE
AGE: 42 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. YALAVA TTI ONI, ANNIGERI,
TQ: NA VALGUND, DIS T: DHARWAD.
6. SAROJAMMA
W/O MALLAPPA AWADAKKANAVAR
AGE: 53 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. DONI, TQ: MUNDARAGI
DIST: DHARWAD
4
7. SUVARNA W/O MALLIKARJUNAGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. BALLUR, TQ: NAVALAGUND,
DIST: DHARWAD.
8. NINGAWWA D/O S IDDAPPA NASABI
AGE: 33 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. HALAKUSUGAL, TQ: NAVALAGUND
9. CHANNAVEERAPPA S IDDAPPA NASABI
AGE: 30 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE
R/O. HALAKUSUGAL TQ : NAVALAGUND
10. PARVA TI D/O SIDDAPPA NASABI
AGE: 23 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. HALAKUSUGAL TQ : NAVALAGUND
11. TIPPANAGOUDA S/O SHIVANAGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR @ GOVINDA GOUDAR
AGE: 61 YEARS , OCC: AGRI/ PUJARIKI
R/O. UGARGOL.
12. RENAKIGOUDA @ BABURAO
S/O SHIVANAGOUDA RENAKE GOUDAR
@ GOVINDAGOUDAR
AGE: 57 YEARS , OCC: AGRIL/PUJARIKI
R/O. UGARGOL
13. KUMARI GANGOTRI D /O RAMANAGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR @ GOVINDAGOUDAR
AGE: 34 YEARS ,
R/O. BADAMI, TQ : BAGALKO T
14. SIDDANAGOUDA S/O SURESHAGOUDA @
JAGANNATHAGOUDA RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: 27 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI.
15. KUMARI REKHA D/O SURESHAGOUDA @
JAGANNATHAGOUDA RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: 32 YEARS , OCC: NIL
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI
5
16. PRABHAVATI W/O RA JA SANIKOPPA @
SANIKOPPANAVAR
AGE: 40 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD
R/O. INF RONT OF VIJAYA COLLEGE
BIJAPUR
17. KAMALAWWA W/O GOVINDAGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI
18. RENAKEGOUDA S/O GOVINDAGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS
19. VIJAYA W/O RENAKEGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR @ GOVINDAGOUDAR
AGE: 35 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI
20. KUMAR NINGANAGOUDA S/O RENAKEGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR @ GOVINDAGOUDAR
AGE: 14 YEARS , OCC: NIL
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI
SINCE MINOR, REP. BY NA TU RAL
GUARDIAN R.19.
21. PARASANEGOUDA
S/O GOVINDAGOUDA RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: MAJOR
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI
22. RENAWWA W/O MALLAPPA MUNDARAGI
SINCE DECEASED BY HER L.RS.,
22(A) MOHAN MALLAPPA MUNDARGI
AGE: 65 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
22(B) VEERUPAKSH MALLAPPA MUNDARGI
AGE: 55 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
6
22(C) BASAVARAJ MALLAPPA MUNDARGI
AGE: 50 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
22(D) KASTURIAMMA FAKIRGOUDA
SAVAKKANAVAR
AGE: 49 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
23. BASANAGOUDA RAMANAGOUDA
HUDED @ PA TIL
SINCE DECEASED, BY HIS L.RS.,
23(A) SMT.PARAVVA W/O .BASANGOUDA HUDED
AGE: 50 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
23(B) ANNAVVA D/O.JAGADANGOUDA
RENKIGOUDAR
AGE: 30 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
23(C) SHOBHA D/O. BASANGOUDA HUDED
AGE: 24 YEARS : OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
23(D) SAGANGOUDA S/O.BASANGOUDA HUDED
AGE: 23 YEARS , OCC: S TUDENT,
ALL ARE R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
24. JAREPPAGOUDA RAMANAGOUDA
HUDED @ PA TIL
AGE: 51 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE
R/O SAVANOOR, TQ: SAVANOOR.
25. ANNAPPAGOUDA RAMANAGOUDA
HUDED @ PA TIL
AGE: 40 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE
R/O. SAVANOOR, TQ : SAVANOOR
26. YELLAPPAGOUDA RAMANAGOUDA
HUEDED @ PA TIL
7
AGE: 44 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE
R/O. SAVANOOR, TQ : SAVANOOR.
27. BARAMAGOUDA S/O RENAKEGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR @ GOVINDAGODUAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.,
27(A) MALLAVVA W/O.BARAMAGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: 65 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
27(B) SHANKARGOUDA S/O.BARAMAGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
27(C) FAKIRGOUDA S/O.BARAMAGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: 38 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
27(D) TEJANGOUDA S/O.BARAMAGOUDA
RENAKEGOUDAR
AGE: 34 YEARS , OCC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
27(E) BHAGIRATHI W/O .NINGAPPA SHEELVANT
AGE: 45 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. SWAPADAL, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
27(F) RENUKA W/O.HOSURAJ BHIMANNAVAR
AGE: 36 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. MURKUMBI POS T, TQ: SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
28. JAGDANGOUDA S/O.GOVINDAGOUDA
RENAKIGOUDAR
AGE: 43 YEARS ,
8
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
29. GURANGOUDA S/O.GOVINDAGOUDA
RENAKIGOUDAR
AGE: 40 YEARS ,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
30. SHOBHA W/O.YALLAPPA TOBADAR
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS.,
30(A) SHWETHA D/O . Y ELLAPPA YEBADAR
AGE: 20 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
30(B) BASAVARAJ S/O. YELLAPPA Y EBADAR
AGE: 18 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
30(C) REKHA D/O. YELLAPPA YEBADAR
AGE: 16 YEARS , OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
SINCE MINOR REP. BY HER NA TURAL
GUARDIAN R.30(A).
ALL ARE R/O. PUDAKALKA TTI, AMINBHAVI,
TQ: & D IS T: DHARWAD.
31. SMT.BHARATI D/O.GOVINDAGOUDA
RENAKIGOUDA
AGE: 40 YEARS ,
R/O. UGARGOL, TQ : SAUNDATTI,
DIST: BELGAUM
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SONDUR A.P., ADVOCA TE, FOR R.1 TO R.13;
SRI G .I GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE, FOR R.5(A) TO
(F), R.11 AND R.12;
SRI PRAVEENKUMAR G. KULKARNI, ADVOCA TE, FOR
R.17, 19, 21, 28, 29 AND 31;
SRI GURURAJ M. SOMAKKALAVAR, ADVOCA TE, FOR
R.22, R.23(A) TO (D), R.24, R.25, R.26, R.30(A) TO (C);
SRI SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCA TE, FOR
R.27(A) TO (D);
R.3(A) TO (D), 14, 15, 16, 22(A) TO (D), 27(E) AND 27(F)
- NO TICE S ERVED;
9
R.18 - DECEASED BY L.RS., WHO ARE ALREADY ON
RECORD;
R.30(C) - MINOR, REP. BY R.30(A);
R.20 - MINOR, REP. BY R.19.)
THIS REGULAR F IRS T APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 96 OF CPC, PRAYING TO S ET ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 22.1.2004, PASSED
IN O .S.NO .18/1996 (OLD NO.49/1989), ON THE F ILE
OF THE CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) , SAUNDATTI, ETC.,.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The defendants No.2B, 2E, 2F, 4 and 2A in O.S.No.18/1996 (old O.S.No.49/1989), on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Saundatti, have come up in this first appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 22.1.2004, in decreeing the suit of plaintiffs in part.
2. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the suit in O.S.No.18/1996 is by the widow and children of Shivanagouda seeking partition in the suit schedule properties item Nos.1 to 4 as shown in the schedule to the plaint. The said 10 schedule to the plaint is vivid description of the properties, which are referred to in paragraph No.1 of the plaint and some other places where there is reference found for the properties. Schedule No.1 consists of 7 agricultural lands, scheduled No.2 is in respect of six items of house properties at Ugargol village, schedule No.3 is in respect of one item of house property at Yallammanagudda and schedule No.4 is in respect of three items of movable properties in which the plaintiffs have collectively sought 1/3 r d share.
3. Admittedly the plaintiffs and defendants are the members of the joint family of Parasanagouda and his wife Basavva. The genealogy of Parasanagouda and Basavva would indicate that they had three sons, the first one is Govindagouda, who is said to have two sons, namely, Parasanagouda and Vishwanathgouda. Parasanagouda is said to be given in adoption and 11 Govindagouda's branch has only one son representing his branch i.e., his second son Vishwanathgouda, who is representing his father Govindgouda's branch in the joint family. The defendants 1 to 4 are the members belonging to the family of Govindagouda who died in the year 1921. The 2 n d branch is Renakigouda, 2 n d son of propositus Parasanagouda and Basavva. Renakigouda also died in the year 1935. He had four children, namely, two sons and two daughters and they are Govindagouda, Bharamagouda, Renavva and Shantavva. The defendants No.5 to 8 are the members of branch of Renakigouda. Plaintiffs are the members of the branch of Shivanagouda, the 3 r d son of propositus Parasanagouda and his wife Basavva.
4. Admittedly Shivanagouda lived till 1975 thereby indicating that he was karta of the joint family consisting of all the descendents of his 12 elder brother Govindagouda's family and 2 n d elder brother Renakigouda's family. The records would indicate Shivanagouda had in all three wives, namely, (1) Bhagirati, (2) Avakka and (3) Nagavva. The presence of Avakka plays a major role in the suit for the reason that some of the properties are claimed as stridhana properties of this lady Avakka, which are admitted by defendants also. However there are certain other properties which are purchased in the branch of Shivanagouda, which they tried to project them as properties purchased from out of the income derived from the stridhana properties of Avakka, which is the main bone of the contention in the original suit.
5. In the suit, written statement was not filed for a long time though the suit was filed on 17.5.1989. It is on 6.3.1990 the 4 t h defendant filed the written statement which is adopted by defendants No.1 to 3 by filing a memo on the same 13 day i.e., on 6.3.1990. Similarly written statement was filed on behalf of 5 t h and 8 t h defendants independently on 6.3.1990 and the written statement filed by defendant No.5 was adopted by defendant No.7 on the same lines by filing a memo on 9.3.1990. With this, pleadings were completed and matter went to framing of issues and recording of evidence.
6. The trial Court proceeded to frame in all eleven issues, out of which 11 t h issue is with reference to the relief to which the parties are entitled. In the proceedings before the trial Court, on behalf of plaintiffs evidence was adduced. Two witnesses were examined, the first one is PW.1 Tippanagouda Shivanagouda Renakegoudar who is 9 t h plaintiff in the original suit and second one is PW.2 Parasanagouda Fakiragouda Marigoudar who is not a member of the family, he is an independent witness known to the members of the 14 joint family. The evidence of PW.1 is more or less similar on the lines of the plaint averments. PW.2 tried to support the evidence of PW.1.
7. The sum and substance of the entire evidence on behalf of PWs.1 and 2 is that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of Parasanagouda they were not subjected to partition at any point of time; they are in joint possession and enjoyment of all the members of the joint family of plaintiffs 1 to 10 and defendants 1 to 8 and that the same is required to be divided into three shares; one share collectively for all the plaintiffs No.1 to 10 and 2 n d share is for defendants No.1 to 4 representing the branch of Govindagouda and third share is to defendants 5 to 8 representing the branch of Renakigouda.
8. Admittedly the plaintiffs are the members belonging to the branch of 15 Shivanagouda. Accordingly they sought for partition. In the plaint itself they had pleaded that some of the properties are the absolute properties of Avakka which is in the exclusive possession, cultivation and enjoyment of plaintiffs which are lands situated in Block No.155, 717 and 1016 of Ugargol village and also two items of house properties situated in VPC No.598 and 845. Admittedly these properties were not shown in schedule Nos.1 to 4 which are referred to supra. They were separately referred to in paragraph No.5 of the plaint as exclusive properties of 1 s t plaintiff Avakka as her stridhana properties, in which, they contended that the defendants No.1 to 8 have no manner of right, title and share.
9. In addition to that they also tried to contend that the property bearing Block No.139 measuring 3 acres 2 guntas, Block No.168 measuring 4 acres 16 guntas and Block No.673 16 measuring 15 acres 34 guntas are agricultural lands situated in Ugargol village of Saundatti taluk, which exclusively belong to the plaintiffs. This was also included in para 5 of the plaint. In addition to that it was also contended that there are other 8 properties to the branch of plaintiffs which are open space and also house properties in VPC No.661, 662, 759, 731, 855/B, 860, 854 and 737/A, all are situated within the gram panchayat limits of Ugargol village. These three items of lands in Ugargol village and 8 items of VPC numbers which are open space and house properties are said to have purchased by plaintiffs branch exclusively from out of the income derived from stridhana properties of Avakka said to have given to her by her father.
10. In the written statement a specific stand was taken by the defendants in paragraph No.7 that they are admittedly stridhana properties 17 as referred to supra which was pleaded in paragraph No.5 of the plaint as properties given to Avakka from the family of her father. However purchase of three agricultural lands and eight VPC properties as stated above are the properties which are purchased out of the income generated from stridhana properties of Avakka was denied and declined. In the written statement it was also a pleading that there was a partition earlier and some of the properties were given to the share of Shivanagouda, which are the suit schedule item No.1 property and the defence is that Shivanagouda's family has taken certain properties to its share in the oral partition in the year 1960-61; the same was not included in the suit schedule while adding the properties which are allotted to the share of Govindagouda's family more particularly his son Vishwanathgouda and similarly it was stated that whatever the properties that was given to Renakigouda was also 18 included but not the property taken to the share of Shivanagouda.
11. In the evidence which is adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs as stated supra by two witnesses by name PWs.1 and 2, they were able to demonstrate that there was no partition as contended in the written statement filed by defendants No.4, 5 and 8 accepted by other defendants by filing a memo. When the defendants adduced evidence in support of their defence by examining three witnesses, out of that Parasanagouda Govindagouda and Renakigouds who is DW.1 is defendant No.5(c) and whereas DW.2 Basanagouda is defendant No.4 and DW.3 Ramalingappa is an independent witness. These three witnesses were not able to show that there was earlier partition in the year 1960-61. However they were able to demonstrate that some of the properties were in independent cultivation and 19 enjoyment of the defendants, thereby it only show arrangement but not partition as rightly accepted by the trial Court. If the same is accepted as partition, then it can be safely presumed as held by the trial Court that it is an unjust partition, which is not proved.
12. As could be seen, the written statement of defendants No.1 to 4 would indicate that several properties in schedule No.1 has been allotted to the share of Vishwanathgouda in the oral partition of the year 1960-61. The extent of land which is allotted to them as stated in the written statement would indicate that nearly 30 acres is given to him as against 5 acres shown to the share of Renakigouda. The properties which are standing in the name of Shivanagouda's family are derived from out of the income generated from stridhana property of Avakka was not being established by the plaintiffs in support of their 20 pleadings and evidence would indicate that more than 25-30 acres of land are standing in their name.
13. Therefore it clearly discloses that there is no partition in the family either in the year 1960-61 indicating division of the suit schedule properties as shown in schedules annexed to the plaint which is an extension of pleadings in paragraph No.1 of the plaint and would also support that some of the items which are shown in paragraph No.5 of the plaint as self acquired properties of the family as having acquired from out of the income generated from the stridhana property of Avakka are also properties of joint family and that they are not the properties purchased by the branch of Shivanagouda's family from out of the income said to have generated under stridhana properties of Avakka. Therefore the trial Court has accepted the same. 21
14. While doing so, an error is committed in not including all the properties of the plaint schedule as seen in schedule to the plaint and also the properties which are purchased and standing in the name of defendants which are shown in paragraphs No.7 and 14 of the written statement filed by defendant No.4.
15. In that view of the matter, this Court by allowing this appeal would observe that the decree of partition granted by the trial Court is required to be modified in holding that in addition to all the suit schedule properties, the following properties shown in paragraph No.5 of the plaint are also the joint family properties of late Parasanagouda standing in the name of Shivanagouda's branch which are also available for partition among the branches of Govindagouda, Renakigouda and Shivanagouda. 22 Therefore this Court would specifically observe that in addition to the properties which are shown in schedule No.1 to 3 to the plaint, the following properties are also to be included for partition.
Agricultural lands bearing Block
No.139 measuring 3 acres 2 guntas,
Block No.168 measuring 4 acres 16
guntas and Block No.673 measuring 15
acres 34 guntas, all situated in Ugargol village of Saundatti taluk. In addition to that eight properties including open space and also house properties bearing VPC Nos.661, 662, 759, 731, 855/B, 860, 854 and 737/A, all situated within the gram panchayat limits of Ugargol village.
23
16. So far as schedule No.4 is concerned, the finding of the trial Court that the movable properties mentioned therein are not in existence is accepted by this Court and dismissal of the same is not disturbed in this judgment. Appeal stands allowed accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Mrk/-