Mrs Chandrakala vs Mrs. Akkamma
2022 Latest Caselaw 6082 Kant

                            1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

             R.S.A. NO.347 OF 2018 (PAR)
                         C/W
             R.S.A. NO.348 OF 2018 (PAR)
           AND R.S.A. NO.598 OF 2018 (PAR)

IN RSA NO.347/2018:

BETWEEN:

1.     MRS. CHANDRAKALA
       D/O M.K. SESHAPPA MOOLYA
       AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.

2.     SMT. MUTHAKKA
       W/O M.K. SESHAPPA MOOLYA
       AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS.

       BOTH ARE R/AT PARENKI VILLAGE
       BELTHANGADY TALUK,
       POST MADANTHYAR, D.K 574224.
                                       ...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     MRS. AKKAMMA,
       W/O JINNAPPA MOOLYA,
       AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
       R/AT MAILODY HOUSE
       MACHINA VILLAGE,
       BELTHANGADY TALUK POST
       MACHINA D.K 574224.
                            2




2.   MRS. SEETHA
     W/O M.K.SESHAPA MOOLYA
     AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
     R/AT KOLPEDA BAIL,
     MALADY VILLAGE
     POST MALADY, BELTHANGADY TALUK,
     D.K. 574214.

3.   SMT. CHANDRAVATHI,
     W/O MANJUNATHA MOOLYA
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
     R/AT MAJALU KARUNADU VILLAGE
     KARUNADU POST, BANTWAL TALUK
     D.K. 574219.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 R/W RULE 1 OF
ORDER XLII OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 27.11.2017 PASSED IN RA NO.103/2010 ON THE FILE
OF THE PRL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BELTHANGADY,
DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 5.07.2010 PASSED IN OS NO.120/1998
ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELTHANGADY,
D.K.

IN RSA NO.348/2018:

BETWEEN:

1.   MRS CHANDRAKALA
     D/O SMT MUTHAKKE
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

2.   SMT MUTHAKKA
     W/O M K SESHAPPA MOOLYA
     AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
     R/O RAJA RAJESHWARI RICE MILL,
     BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
     PARENKI VILLAGE
     BELTHANGADY TALUK,
     POST MADANTHYAR, D.K.574224.
                                      ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANATH KUMAR SHETTY K, ADVOCATE)
                            3




AND:

1.     MRS SEETHA
       W/O M K SESHAPPA MOOLYA
       AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
       KOLPEDA BAIL, MALADY VILLAGE
       POST MALADY, BELTHANGADY TALUK,
       D.K.574214.

2.     MRS AKKAMMA
       W/O JINNAPPA MOOLYA
       AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
       MAILODY, MACHINA VILLAGE
       BELTHANGADY TALUK POST,
       MACHINA, D.K 574224.

3.     SMT CHANDRAVATHI
       W/O MANJUNATHA MOOLYA
       AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
       MAJALU IN KARUNADU VILLAGE
       AND POST, BANTWAL TALUK,
       D.K.574219.                       ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 R/W RULE 1
ORDER XLII OF CPC, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 27.11.2017 PASSED IN R.A.NO.91/2010 ON THE FILE OF
THE   PRINCIPAL   SENIOR    CIVIL   JUDGE    AND   JMFC,
BELTHANGADY, ALLOWING THE APPEAL AND SETTING ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 05.07.2010 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.120/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
BELTHANGADY.D.K.

IN RSA NO.598/2018

BETWEEN:

MRS SEETHA
W/O LATE M K SESAPPA MOOLYA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
KOLPEDABAIL
MALADY VILLAGE
BELTHANGADY-574214.                      ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. K SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE)
                             4




AND:

1.     MRS AKKAMMA
       W/O MR JINNAPPA MOOLYA
       AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
       MAILODY, MACHINA VILLAGE
       P.O:MACHINA-574295
       BELTHANGADY TALUK.

2.     MRS CHANDRAKALA
       D/O MRS MUTHAKKE
       AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
       RAJA RAJESHWARI RICE MILL
       PARENKY VILLAGE
       P.O:MADANTHYAR-574224
       BELTHANGADY TALUK.

3.     MRS CHANDRAVATHI
       W/O MR MANJUNATH MOOLYA
       AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
       MALAJU IN KURNADU-574153
       BANTWAL TALUK.

4.     MRS MUTHAKKA
       C/O MRS CHANDRAKALA
       AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
       RAJA RAJESHWARI RICE MILL
       PARENKY VILLAGE
       P.O:MADANTHYAR-574224
       BELTHANGADY TALUK.
                                       ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R3;
R2 AND R4 SERVED)

      THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF CPC,
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DECREE DATED 27.11.2017 PASSED
IN RA.NO.91/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BELTHANGADY, ALLOWING THE APPEAL
AND SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
05.07.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO. 120/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE
CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC BELTHANGADY.D.K.
                                    5




     THESE REGULAR SECOND APPEALS COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed by defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4

challenging the divergent finding recorded by the First

Appellate Court in R.A.No.103/2010 and 91/2010, by

which, it reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial

Court in O.S.No.120/1998.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred as

they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The suit in O.S No.120/1998 was filed for

partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share of the

plaintiff in the suit schedule properties, which are

agricultural lands bearing Survey Nos. 40/1, 40/2A2, 40/3

and 40/6 of Maladi Village, Belthangadi Taluk and Survey

No.157/2B of Maladi Village of Belthangadi Taluk.

4. The plaintiff claimed that the occupancy right of

the land bearing Survey Nos. 40/1, 40/2A2, 40/3 and 40/6

were granted to Narna Moolya by the Land Tribunal on

25.09.1979 while the land bearing Survey No.157/2B was

assigned in the name of Kittu Hengsu wife of Narna

Moolya. The plaintiff, defendant No.3 and M.K.Sesappa

Moolya were the children of Narna Moolya and Kittu

Hengsu. Defendant No.1 is the wife of M.K.Sesappa

Moolya. It was stated that the above properties were the

joint properties of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 3.

Hence, she was entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule

properties as Narna Moolya died on 25.07.1988 while Kittu

Hengsu died on 28.07.1984. Plaintiff stated that the

defendant No.2 claimed to be the daughter of M.K.Sesappa

Moolya and laid claim to the suit properties under a Will

allegedly executed by M.K.Sesappa Moolya. The plaintiff

stated that the defendant No.2 had got the revenue

records transferred to her name and to the name of her

mother, defendant No.4. The plaintiff contended that

M.K.Sesappa Moolya had not married anyone else other

than defendant No.1 and that she was in possession and

enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiff claimed that

she was deemed to be in possession of suit properties as

it was jointly owned and possessed by all the family

members of M.K.Sesappa Moolya. She alleged that she

was not willing to continue as a joint owner and hence,

sought for partition and separate possession of her share

in the suit properties.

5. The defendant No.1 contested the suit and

admitted the fact that the land bearing Survey Nos. 40/1,

40/2A2, 40/3 and 40/6 of Maladi village, were granted to

Narna Moolya by the Land Tribunal. She also admitted that

plaintiff, defendant No.3 and M.K.Sesappa Moolya were the

children of Narna Moolya and Kittu Hengsu. However, she

denied that the suit properties were the joint properties of

plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 3. She contended that Narna

Moolya had executed a Will dated 01.01.1986 in respect

of said lands in favour of his son M.K.Sesappa Moolya and

after the death of M.K. Sesappa Moolya, she being the only

legal heir to M.K.Sesappa Moolya had succeeded to the

said properties. Insofar as land bearing Survey No. 157/2B

is concerned, she contended that it was the only land

available for partition between the plaintiff, herself and

defendant No.3. Hence, she contended that land bearing

No.157/2B was liable to be partitioned in three equal

shares.

6. Defendant No.2 contested the suit and claimed

that the plaintiff had no right over the suit schedule

properties as she was married and living far away from the

suit properties. She contended that defendant Nos. 1 and

3 also had no right over the suit schedule properties. She

contended that land in Survey Nos.40/1, 40/2A2, 40/3 and

40/6 were cultivated by Narna Moolya and his son

M.K.Sesappa Moolya and that Narna Moolya had filed Form

No.7 claiming the occupancy rights in respect of the

aforesaid survey numbers. She claimed that the Land

Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of Narna

Moolya in respect of the aforesaid survey numbers and

later, Narna Moolya, bequeathed the said properties in

favour of M.K.Sesappa Moolya by a Will dated 01.04.1986.

She alleged that, after the death of Narna Moolya,

M.K.Sesappa Moolya became the owner of the aforesaid

four survey numbers and contended that defendant No.1

had deserted M.K.Sesappa Moolya. Therefore, out of

natural love and affection, M.K.Sesappa Moolya had

bequeathed four survey numbers and another property in

favour of defendant No.2 in terms of the Will dated

18.08.1984. She claimed that after the death of

M.K.Sesappa Moolya, she became the owner of aforesaid

four survey numbers. She also claimed that land bearing

Survey No.157/2B was assigned in favour of Smt.Kittu

Hengsu and after her death, it devolved upon her husband

and children and thus, the plaintiff, defendant Nos.1, 3 and

4 are entitled to 1/4th share in the said property.

7. Based on the rival contentions, the Trial Court

framed the following issues:

"(1) Whether the 2nd defendant - Chandrakala proves that she is the daughter of late Seshappa Moolya and Muthakka?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaint A and B schedule properties are the joint properties of herself and defendants No.1 and 3 only?

(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is having share in the suit A and B schedule properties and if so for how much share she is entitled?

(4) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled to get future mesne profits in respect of her share of property from the 1st defendant and in so for how much share she is entitled?

(5) Whether the 1st defendant proves that late Narna Moolya in respect of the plaint A schedule properties, by executing his Will dated 1-1-1986 had bequeathed the plaint A schedule properties in favour of her son late Sesappa Moolya?

(6) If so, whether the 1st defendant proves that after the death of Seshappa Moolya she became the absolute owner of the plaint A schedule properties?

(7) Whether the 2nd defendant proves that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for mis-joinder or defendant No.1 and 3?

(8) Whether the 2nd defendant proves that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for non-joinder of her mother - Muthakka?

(9) Whether the 2nd defendant proves that the plaint A schedule property is the joint leasehold property of late Narna Moolya and his son late Seshappa Moolya?

(10) Whether the 2nd defendant proves that Grantee-Narna Moolya by executing his Will dated 01-4-1986 had bequeathed the plaint A schedule properties in favour of her son- Sheshappa Moolya?

(11) Whether the 2nd defendant proves that Sheshapp Moolya by executing Will dated 18- 08-1984 has bequeathed the plaint A schedule properties and other properties in her favour?

(12) If so whether the 2nd defendant proves that after the death of Sheshappa Moolya on the strength of his Will dated 18-8-1984 she became the absolute owner of the plaint A schedule property and another property?

(13) Whether the plaintiff proves that she has property valued the suit and paid property Court fees thereon?

(14) To what relief the parties are entitled?

(15) What order or decree?"

8. The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and she

marked documents as Exs.P1 to P11. The defendant No.1

was examined as D.W.1 and defendant No.2 was examined

as D.W.2 and they marked Exs.D1 to D34. They also

examined two witnesses as D.W.3 and 4.

9. Based on the oral and documentary evidence,

the Trial Court held that the land bearing Survey Nos.40/1,

40/2A2, 40/3 and 40/6 were granted to Narna Moolya by

the Land Tribunal and therefore, he was the absolute

owner of the said properties. It also held that the said

Narna Moolya had executed a Will in favour of his son

M.K.Sesappa Moolya in terms of Ex.D1. However, it held

that the Will dated 18.08.1984 allegedly executed by

M.K.Sesappa Moolya which was propounded by defendant

No.2 was not proved in accordance with law. It also held

that the suit properties were not the joint properties of

plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 3 as both the plaintiff and

defendant No.3 were born prior to 1956 and were married

prior to 1974. The Trial Court applied the law declared by

a learned Single Judge of this Court in N.V.Pushpalatha

Vs. Padma and others reported in ILR 2010 KAR 1484

and held that the plaintiff and defendant No.3 are not

entitled for any share in the suit properties. In so far as,

the land bearing Sy.No.157/2B is concerned, the Trial

Court held that the revenue records of the said property

was transferred to the name of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4

and that the plaintiff had not challenged the said mutation

proceedings before the revenue authorities. Therefore, it

held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the said property

was the joint properties of the plaintiff and defendant

Nos.1, 2 and 3 and thus dismissed the suit.

10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and

decree, the plaintiff filed first appeal in R.A.No.91/2010,

while the defendant Nos.2 and 4 filed R.A.No.103/2010

against the finding that M.K.Sesappa Moolya had not

executed a Will in favour of defendant No.2.

11. The First Appellate Court heard both the

appeals and framed the following points for consideration:

"(1) Whether the plaintiff has proved that the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are the joint family properties of herself and the defendants No.1 and 3?

(2) Whether the Defendant No.1 has proved the due execution of Will dated 01-01-1986 in favour of M.K.Sesappa Moolya?

(3) Whether the defendant No.2 has proved due execution of Will dated 01-04-1986 in favour of M.K.Sesappa Moolya?

(4) Whether the defendant No.2 has proved that she is the daughter of M.K.Sesappa Moolya?

(5) Whether the Judgment of the Trial Court calls for interference?

(6) What order or decree?"

12. The First Appellate Court reversed the

judgment and decree of the Trial Court on the following

findings:

(a) That the original Will of Narna Moolya dated 01.01.1986 in favour of M.K.Sesappa Moolya was not marked before the Trial Court. The certified copy of the Will could not be marked without laying the foundation as prescribed under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

(b) No evidence was adduced to prove the signatures of the attesting witnesses or the signature of Narna Moolya on the Will dated 01.01.1986.

(c) That though the defendant No.1 had filed an application to summon the original thumb impression, the same was dismissed by the Trial Court and challenged before this Court in a writ petition. This Court disposed of the writ petition directing the Trial Court to decide the validity of the document on the basis of the certified copy. It held that except producing Ex.D.1, the defendant No.2 did not adduce any evidence to prove Ex.D1 in accordance with law. It therefore, held that the defendants did not comply with the requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and that the defendant No.1 failed to prove the due execution of Ex.D1.

(d) That the defendant No.2 also failed to prove the lawful execution of the Will dated 01.04.1986 allegedly executed by Narna Moolya in favour of M.K.Sesappa Moolya.

(e) In so far as the Will dated 18.08.1984 allegedly executed by M.K.Sesappa Moolya in

favour of defendant No.2, it held that the attesting witness (D.W.4) did not identify the signatures of M.K.Sesappa Moolya. It held that Narna Moolya died on 27.04.1988 and therefore, M.K.Sesappa Moolya derived no right, title or interest in the suit properties to bequeath them to the defendant No.2 on 18.08.1984.

(f) It also held that the Will dated 18.08.1984 allegedly executed by M.K.Sesappa Moolya was suspicious as the Will in favour of M.K.Sesappa Moolya was dated 01.04.1986.

13. In view of the above finding, the First Appellate

Court held that M.K.Sesappa Moolya died intestate and

that the defendant No.2 was illegitimate child of

M.K.Sesappa Moolya, in view of the recital contained in

Ex.D4, which was the Will dated 18.08.1984 executed by

M.K.Sesappa Moolya in favour of the defendant No.2,

wherein it was stated that the defendant No.1 was his first

wife. It held that the plaintiff is entitled to an undivided

share in the suit schedule properties along with defendant

Nos.1, 2 and 4. The First Appellate Court held that the

defendant No.2 being an illegitimate child of M.K.Sesappa

Moolya was entitled to a share in the share of M.K.Sesappa

Moolya and thus, allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff in

R.A.No.91/2010 and dismissed the appeal filed by the

defendant No.2 in R.A.No.103/2010 and consequently,

decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff and defendant

No.3 are entitled to 1/3rd share in all the suit properties.

14. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and

decree, the defendant Nos.2 and 4 and defendant No.1

have filed these second appeals.

15. The learned counsel for the defendant Nos.2

and 4 contended that lands in Survey Nos.40/1, 40/2A2

40/3 and 40/6 were the properties that were held by

Narna Moolya as his own properties and that he had

executed a Will dated 01.04.1986 in favour of

M.K.Sesappa Moolya, who executed a Will dated

18.08.1984 in favour of the defendant No.2 and therefore,

there is clear flow of title in favour of defendant No.2. He

further submitted that the Will of Narna Moolya was

executed in the year 1986 and that the same was

registered in accordance with law and therefore, some

amount of credibility had to be attached to the said Will.

He also contended that the First Appellate Court having

held that the defendant No.2 is a illegitimate child of

M.K.Sesappa Moolya ought to have granted proportionate

share to the defendant Nos.2 and 4.

16. The learned counsel for defendant No.1

submitted that the Will dated 01.01.1986 executed by

Narna Moolya in favour of M.K.Sesappa Moolya was

probable and believable as the plaintiff and defendant No.3

were married and residing far away and therefore,

M.K.Sesappa Moolya was the only one looking after Narna

Moolya. Further he submitted that the plaintiff and

defendant No.3 were married and were not members of a

family as held by a Division Bench of this Court in

Nimbavva and others vs Channaveerayya and others

reported in 2015 (1) KCCR 205(DB) case.

17. Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff

submitted that the Will allegedly executed by Narna

Moolya dated 01.01.1986 and 01.04.1986 was not proved

in accordance with law and therefore, Narna Moolya should

be considered as having died intestate. If that be so, then

the property should devolve on his children namely,

plaintiff, the husband of defendant No.1 and defendant

No.3. In so far as, the land bearing Sy.Nos.157/2B is

concerned, he submitted that the share of plaintiff and

defendants were in conformity with Section 15 of the

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and therefore, the First

Appellate Court was right in decreeing the suit filed by the

plaintiff.

18. I have considered the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties and I have also perused

the records of the Trial Court as well as the Judgment and

Decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate

Court.

19. The undisputed facts are that, occupancy

rights in respect of the lands bearing survey Nos.40/1,

40/2A2, 40/3 and 40/6 was granted to Narna Moolya by

the Land Tribunal. None of the parties marked Form No.7

which could have thrown some light about the tenancy. In

so far as the land bearing Sy.No.157/2B is concerned, the

same was assigned to Smt.Kittu Hengsu, who also died

intestate. As far as the Will dated 01.01.1986 and

01.04.1986 allegedly executed by Narna Moolya in favour

of M.K.Sesappa Moolya, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 failed

to establish the same in accordance with law. Therefore,

the finding of the First Appellate Court that the Will

executed by Narna Moolya in favour of M.K.Sesappa

Moolya was not proved in accordance with law, cannot be

interfered with. If that be so, then the Will dated

18.08.1984 executed by M.K.Sesappa Moolya in favour of

defendant No.2 has no legs to stand and is also suspicious

since M.K.Sesappa Moolya was not the full owner of the

suit properties as on that date. The contention that

plaintiff and defendant No.3 were married and were not

entitled to any share, in view of the judgment in

Nimbavva's case is rejected in view of the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in N.Padmamma And Others Vs. S.

Ramakrishna Reddy And Others reported in (2015) 1

SCC 417 held as follows:

"15. It is evident from the above that the right of partition was held to have been lost by operation of law. Till such time the grant was made no such right could be recognized, observed this Court. This Court specifically held that it was not concerned with the consequences that would ensue after grant is made. The suit in the present case was filed after the grant of occupancy rights. The question here is whether the grant of such rights is for the benefit of one of the members of the joint family or for all the heirs left behind by Ramachandra Reddy. Our answer to that question is in favour of the appellants. In our opinion, the grant of such occupancy rights in favour of Respondent 1 was for the benefit of all the legal heirs left behind by Ramachandra Reddy. Reliance upon Lokraj v. Kishan Lal case [(1995) 3 SCC 291], therefore, is of no assistance to the respondents. We are also of the view that the decision in Lokraj case, does not correctly apply the earlier decision of this Court in Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Singh v.

Sidheswar Mukherjee case [(1971) 1 SCC 556]. With utmost respect to the Hon'ble Judges who delivered the decision in Lokraj case, the law was not correctly laid down, if the same was meant to say that even in the absence of a plea of ouster, a co-heir could merely on the basis of grant of the occupancy rights in his name exclude the other co- heirs from partition of the property so granted."

20. A Division Bench of this Court, to which I was a

party, had held in the case of Arvind And Another Vs.

Sunanda And Others [RFA No.100149/2014 disposed off

on 13.01.2020] that in view of the law declared by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in N. Padmamma's case (referred

supra), the law declared by the Division Bench of this

Court in Nimbavva's case (referred supra) was not good

law.

21. The First Appellate Court was justified in

decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff and declaring that

she is entitled to 1/3rd share in the aforesaid properties.

The First Appellate Court was justified in holding that

defendant No.2 was the daughter of M.K.Seshappa Moolya

in view of the substantial documentary evidence which

established the above fact. Thus the defendant Nos.1 and

4 being the wives of M.K.Sesappa Moolya are entitled for a

share in M.K.Sesappa Moolya's notional 1/3rd share in the

suit A and B schedule properties while the defendant No.2

is entitled to the other share in A and B schedule

properties.

22. In so far as the land bearing Sy.No.157/2B is

concerned, the plaintiff being the daughter of Kittu Hengsu

was entitled to claim 1/3rd share along with the husband of

defendant No.1 and the defendant No.3 and the First

Appellate Court was justified in decreeing the suit.

23. Since the First Appellate Court did not specify

the share of defendant Nos.2 and 4, it is necessary to

modify the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate

Court to the extent namely, to declare that the defendant

No.2 is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit schedule A and B

properties, while defendant Nos.1 and 4 are together

entitled to 1/6th share each in the suit schedule A and B

properties.

24. Consequently, these appeals are dismissed

and the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court

granting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff and defendant No.3 in

the suit schedule A and B properties are upheld. The

defendant Nos.1 and 4 are declared to be together entitled

to 1/6th share in the suit schedule A and B properties and

the defendant No.2 is entitled to 1/6th share in the suit

schedule A and B properties.

Sd/-

JUDGE

tsn*/GJM