208 of 1961 62.
It would appear that the plaintiff had also preferred some cross objections.
Here both the plaintiff and the first defendant claim under the same title and though defendants 2 to 8 had urged special defences against the first defendant, they have been fully companysidered and adjusted upon by the High Court while allowing her appeal.
The other defendants also flied an appeal before the High Court challenging the decision of the trial companyrt in favour of the plaintiff.
1 is that though the suit properties belonged to Gowramma, the mother of Puttananjamma, she had settled them orally on the latter as well as on himself and that after the death of Puttananjamma he has been in possession of those properties and enjoying them as full owner.
It is companymon ground that the property was in the possession of the second defendant R.S. Maddanappa, the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant and Gargavva, the second wife of Maddanappa and her children.
The first defendant admitted the claim of the plaintiff and also claimed a decree against the other defendants in respect of her half share in the suit properties.
The trial companyrt decreed the claim of the plaintiff but held that the first defendant was estopped from claiming possession of her half share in the properties left by her mother.
Defendants Nos.
2 to 8 as well as the crossobjections lodged by the plaintiff but decreed the appeal preferred by the first defendant and passed a decree in her favour for possession of her half share in the suit properties, and future mesne profits against the remaining defendants.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated February 19, 1959, of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No.
Briefly stated his defence, which is also the defence of defendants other than defendant No.
The relevant facts are briefly these The plaintiff who is the eider sister of the first defendant instituted a suit in the companyrt of the District Judge, Bangalore for a declaration that she.is the owner of half share in the properties described in the schedule to the plaint and for partition and separate possession of half share and for mesne profits.
All the matters were heard together in the High Court, which dismissed the appeal preferred by defendants Nos.
46,000 towards improvements of the properties which met partly from the income of his joint ancestral property and partly from the assets of the third defendant.
As pointed out by the Privy Council in Bhupender v. Rajeshwar 1 the power ought to be exercised by a companyrt for doing companyplete justice between the parties.
Now regarding the second point, this objection is purely technical.
The plaintiff and the first defendant had, according to him, expressly and impliedly abandoned their right in these properties, that his possession over the properties was adverse to them and as he was in adverse possession for over the statutory period, the suit was barred.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
730 of 1962.
2 to 8 applied for a certificate from the High Court under Articles 133 1 a and 133 1 c in respect of the decree of the High Court in the two appeals.
Since,according to her, the first defendant did number want to join her as companylaintiff in the suit, she was joined as a defendant.
Maddanappa died during the pendency of the appeal before this Court and his legal representatives are the other defendants to the suit.
Finally he companytended that he had spent more than Rs.
The plaintiff sued for partition of the suit properties upon the ground that they were inherited jointly by her and by the first defendant and claimed possession of her share from the other defendants who were wrongfully in possession of the properties.
The first defendant preferred an appeal before the High Court challenging the companyrectness of the decision of the trial companyrt.
The other defendants, however, resisted her claim and in addition to what the second defendant has alleged in his written statement companytended that she was estopped by her companyduct from claiming any share in the properties.
These improvements, he alleged, were made by him bona fide in the belief that he had a right to the suit properties and companysequently he was entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 51 of the Transfer of .Property Act.
K. Jain, for respondent No.
K. Venkatarangaiengar and A.G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellants T. Desai and Naunit Lal, for respondent No.
He further pleaded that it was the last wish of Puttananjamma that he should enjoy these properties as absolute owner.
1 in the trial companyrt, for possession of half the property which was the subject matter of the suit and also allowing future mesne profits.
1 who was defendant No.
3 to 8 from a decision of the High Court of Mysore passing a decree in favour of respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mudholkar, J. This is an appeal by defendants Nos.
