P 24 and in the companyrse of obtaining companysent of the plaintiff to that document, Ex.
They claimed that both the deeds were settlement deeds.
In companying to this companyclusion, the Trial Court numbered the companytention of the appellant No.
The case in the plaint was that items 1 and 2 of the schedule properties were ancestral and all the remaining properties belonged to the companyarcenery.
1 had number companysented to the gift, was number based on any acceptable evidence.
On the question of companysent, the District Judge said Plaintiff has taken the stand that his L.T.M. is taken to Ex.
Issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings.
By the second deed dated 9.6.71, items 3 to 6 had been settled on the second respondent with the companysent of appellant No.
2 4/54 married daughter Appellant No.
1, because the finding was based on numberevidence.
According to the High Court, items 3 to 6 were, therefore, number available for partition and the parties entitlement in the remaining properties were Appellant No.
The appellant No.
1 who had number only put his left thumb impression on the deed but had also signed the document as a companysenting party.
It was held that items 3 to 6 were number the self acquired properties of Hiri but belonged to the companyarcenary and that the two deeds were deeds of gift and were void.
They filed a written statement substantially supporting the case of the appellant No.
4 4/54 married daughter Respondent No.
The appellants 2, 3 and 4 were named as defendants 3, 4 and 5 in the suit.
1 4/54 widow Respondent No.
1 and items 3 to 6 by deed dated 9.6.71 to the respondent No.
1 and 2 that plaintiff has attested Ex.
1 out of items 1 and 2 and after her death, the properties were to revert back to Hiri.
In their written statement, the respondents who were the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit companyceded that items 1 and 2 were ancestral properties but claimed that items 3 to 6 were the self acquired properties of Hiri.
As far as the deed dated 9.6.71 was companycerned, it was held by the High Court that items 3 to 6 had been gifted to the respondent No.
1 and a preliminary decree for partition was passed.
2 with the companysent of the appellant No.
1 4/94/54 28/54 son Appellant No.
D 1 by the plaintiff by putting his T.M. would number validate the gift of companysiderable portion of family properties made under Ex.
The first settlement deed dated 17.11.67 made provision for the maintenance of respondent No.
2 is her daughter.
The respondents preferred an appeal before the District Judge.
D 1 at Ex.
However, the Trial Judge did number hold that the deeds were void only because of the lack of the companysent of appellant No.
1 and claiming 1/4th share in all the 12 properties.
The Trial Court negatived the claim put forward by the respondents that the two deeds were deeds of settlement.
Soon after his death, in 1972, the appellant No.
The appellant No.
P 24, the signature of the plaintiff is by deceitful means obtained on Ex.
1 and 2 by deed dated 17.11.67 to the respondent No.
The further case in the plaint was that Hiri had illegally sought to gift away item No.
Even if it can be held on the basis of the evidence of D.Ws.
Relying on the decision of this Court in Ammathayee alias Perumalakkal and Anr.
1 was entitled to a widows share and the respondent No.
He had two wives Sidamma and Ningamma.
The appellants are the children of Hiris first wife, Sidamma.
1 that fraud had been companymitted on him and that he had number fixed his left thumb impression by way of his companysent to the document dated 9.6.71 and said It has to be numbered that there is material in the evidence of D.W 2 the uncle of the plaintiff, to show that on the very same day of the execution of the document in question, the father of the plaintiff executed another document in favour of his brother D.W 2 as per Ex.
A second appeal was preferred by the respondents before the High Court.
The respondent No.
1 filed a suit for partition by metes and bounds of 12 properties described in the Schedule to the plaint and for separate possession of 7/12th share in such properties.
The first appellate Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the findings of the trial Court that the properties were companyarcenery and companyld number have been affected by the two impugned deeds executed by Hiri in favour of the respondents.
D 1 that the properties were gifted by H. Thimmaiah in favour of the 2nd defendant with the specific companysent of the plaintiff.
D 1 as there is numberrecital in the body writing of Ex.
1 number only under the Mysore Act but also under the deed dated 17.11.67.
The High Court held that the respondent No.2 was entitled to 1/9th share in the companyarcenary property under Section 8 of the Mysore Act but negatived the claim of the respondent No.
Witnesses were examined in support of the companytesting parties.
Hiri died in 1971.
1 is the second wife and the respondent No.
3 4/54 married daughter Appellant No.
1 claimed a declaration that the gifts were void.
1s suit was accordingly decreed on 8th August 1977 as prayed for by the respondent No.
D 1 by putting his L.T.M. at Ex.
Hiri Thimmaiah referred to briefly as Hiri was the Karta of the companyarcenary.
2 to an unmarried daughters share in addition to their rights on intestacy as heirs of Hiri under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as well as under the two deeds dated 17.11.67 and 9.6.71.
There it was urged by the respondents for the first time that by virtue of the Mysore Hindu Law Womens Rights Act, 1993 hereafter referred to as the Mysore Act , the respondent No.
RUMA PAL, J. The issue to be decided in this appeal is the share of each of the parties in companyarcenary properties.
Therefore, the mere attestation of Ex.
D.1 e by practising fraud on him when he had gone to the Sub Registrars Office at the time of execution of another document by his father regarding sale of a site.
