AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—These two appeals arise out of the judgment and decree passed by the I Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore in O.S. No 3628 of 1988 and O.S. No 2750 of 1989 dated 4-2-2006. RFA No 146 of 2007 is filed by the plaintiff in O.S. No 2750 of 1989, being not satisfied of the share allotted to her by the court below. RFA No 1206 of 2006 is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No 3628 of 1988, aggrieved by the share allotted by the court below in favour of the appellants in RFA No. 146 of 2007.
Both appeals fall in a narrow compass. The dispute is in regard to the allotment of shares in favour of reversionary heirs of a Hindu family. Learned counsel for both parties submit that since the dispute is only in regard to allotment of shares of the parties, this court can dispose of the same without referring to the evidence and documents relied upon by the parties.
It is an admitted fact that one Malavalli Thimmappa @ Papanna had two sons by names Malavalli Kamaiah and Malavalli Chindagiriyappa. There was a partition between the two brothers and they were living separately after the partition. Malavalli Kamaiah died on 7-1-1956 and Malavalli Chindagiriyappa died on 2-2-1975. Kamaiah had a wife by name Mallamma, who died on 4-10-1983 without any issues, much after the death of her husband Kamaiah and brother-in-law Chindagiriyappa. Therefore, the dispute in these two appeals is concerning the properties of Kamaiah and Mallamma as reversionary heirs after the death of Mallamma by the legal heirs of and Malavalli Chindagiriyappa.
Chindagiriyappa had two wives by name Kenchamma and Narasamma. Kamaiah had two children by name M.C. Narayanappa and Thayamma. Thayamma died in the year 1945. Narayanappa died during 1973 i.e. two years prior to the death of his father Chindagiriyappa, leaving behind him his legal heirs, who are parties to the suit. Narayanappa''s second wife Rangamma had a daughter by name Puttakenchamma and a son by name Thimmaraju. Thimmaraju died on 27-12-1983 leaving behind him his widow Savithramma, who is first appellant in RFA No 1206 of 2006. Similarly, Dr Shanthakumari is representing the branch of Puttakenchamma, daughter of Chindagiriyappa and second wife of Narayanappa.
Therefore, the short question that arises for consideration in these appeals is as to whether the claim of first appellant Savithramma in RFA No 1206 of 2006 being the widow of M.T. Thimmaraju for half share and similarly as to whether the appellants in RFA No 146 of 2007 are entitled to half share, on the ground that the legal heirs of M.C. Narayanappa are not entitled to claim any share as reversionary heirs, since Narayanappa died on 9-5-1973, much prior to the death of widow of Kamaiah i.e. Mallamma on 4-10-1.983.
The trial court, considering the evidence let in by the parties and considering the genealogy, has rightly held that after the death of Mallamma, her husband''s property has to be reverted back to the legal heirs of Malavalli Chindagiriyappa, who was none other than the brother of husband of Mallamma, since elder son Chindagiriyappa and Narayanappa died leaving behind heirs Puttakenchamma and Thimmaraju, who are entitled to equal share as they are legal heirs of Chindagiriyappa, awarding one-third share to each of the branches. Being not satisfied with the same, the present appeals are presented.
Having heard the learned counsel for both parties, we do not find any merits in both appeals to allot 50% share to the branches of Puttakenchamma or Thimmaraju for the following reasons. On a perusal of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, we are of the view that the properties of a female Hindu died intestate should be divided as set apart in Section 16 of the Act i.e. firstly upon the sons, daughters, including children of any predeceased son, daughter, husband and secondly upon heirs of husband. In the instant case, Section 15(1(b) of the Act is applicable. In view of sub-section (3) of Section 16, the LRs of Narayanappa, LRs Puttakenchamma and LRs of Thimmaraju would stand on the same footing. Therefore, no branch can claim any preferential rights over the others. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the shares allotted by the trial court to the branches of Narayanappa, Puttakenchamma and Thimmaraju as one-third each is just and proper. In the result, both appeals are dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court.