IN THE HIGH coum OF KARNATAKA AT ~
BETWEEN:
1.
,. Raddy
~ --._Vs.P.Révnéq1na
1..
DATED THIS THE 13'"! DAY.9F..J4UN:»::'}2QGL4j, »'
BEFORE I
THE HQWBLE MR.J US'FJ§3E N';A;~:A:~§:;-.5
R.F.A.N9.341(2Qi3fg_.(PAR) .' "
Narasimhamulthy _ .
S] 0. Seethmamaiah' -
Aged a*mi'#5é%&'eaI*s i k
S/o.
37' AV
Bath ':4-/Ma;
Anckal Taluk, Hobli
' ' Appcllraznls
. (By P\:i';;'.;3.1VzidL1§1 i.a§\?A,V"E'2riyI_.;t31s S.Che11naraya Reddy 85 C.Shankar
, Adfiacatgai
A Sfo. .Lat.c'TPuttaswam'ajah
Aged aiziout 84 years
Nev. 119, 3"?' Main Road," KHM Block
* s Gafxganagar
, _ 'Baxxgalorc-32.
S.P.Sridha1amurth3r
S/0. S.}'.Rama1ma
Major
No.19, 3rd Main Road, KHM Block
Ganganagar
Bangakore-32.
£2}!
Sectharamaiah (Since ciexzeascd)
Gundamma (Since deceased)
Rangaiakshmamma V
W/0. K.V.Scshadri Jois'
Aged. about 70 years '
No.2-45, 531"" Cross
4* Block, Rajajinagar
Bangalore-10. ' ~
Ramaswamy Redd; «
310- Latfi P3?='fi1.iaP1?'4'* ' .
Aged abqut '"
Venké;f¢s§i'' _ " ' . 4' A
S/.€>V'_I»zii'3t:; ' '
Agfgcd abailg 5Q'; yca;s_'
TiiiIfimafay;§' 2 .. . ,--~
8/ 0. '=Gu1appa Raddy" "
Aged aii;~o1it65.yc'ars'~°
"°R¢spopdenté3*%----£':s'6 to 8 are
' R/at Siizgcna Agrahara
" ~ .Anck31"Ta1a1k, Sarjapuna, Hobli
Ba1igal02tfev.!3istIict.
. . . Respondents
(E33? Reddy 85 C.Na;'ayana Swamy. Advocates for
R'? 8; §?8;" Rflarayana 85 H.R.Lakshrnan Raddy, Advocates for R1,
-R4 85 R5; R2, R3 85 R5-Notice dispensed with; .'R'6~Servt=:d; an
A " »,P.'£*.LNanja Raddy. Advocate for R8; R4~Servim Compietc 85 no need
"aIit:;,briiig L123 v.c.o. dt.29.05.08)
This appeal is filed under Section 96 fl"? Order 41 R1116 1
partition and separate possession 85 eic.
% .,(§5C, against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2002, passed
in O.S.No.I67/1991, on the file of 11 Add}. Civi} Judge {Sr.Dn.},
.~ Bangaiore Rurai District, Bangalore, dismissing the suit for
This appeal coming on for finai hearing this day,
delivered the following: "
JUDGMENT
The unsuocessfiml plainfiffis in 167 flit} u V’
file er 1; Add}. Civil Judge (sr.::m..;, gna ngeaaglm’ D ié.§ t:rig'”t’.;:
Bangfibre, have filed jlfiwcnt and
decree dated 23.0§.2u02.__ 3
In this Vto by their anay
befolt: the V V
i;a1fics is as f0Ik:rws;–
@1113 of iate Puttaswamaiah.
E)efend_aI1ts’ 4 :a;.fim thb’:é’~:in§aughtcrs ef late Puttaswamaiah.
<3; 2 was of defendant No.3. Defendant
r~z¢;%:;~ -is she' Ldcfendant The suit schedule pm-parties
Wer;:"t5he properties of lat: Puttaswamiah, who
'V died tlw year 1964.
” VT It is the case of plainfifls that defendants I 35 3, who
the sons of late Puttaswamaiah were members of jaint
u After the dflath of Puttaswamaiah, defendants 1 to 3
‘f\).
landed properties are mentioned in Schedu1§?~.I;’ _
pI’0pcI1ies are mentioned in 11
pmpertacs am mentioned in Sc1;edu1t;$4I_II:.’*.V_A.
4. The I–dcfcnda11t V
stateInent:– _’ V A
The E-defendant between
parties. The avexmcnts.
The !~defa;1(ia;;igtV the lifetime of
Puttasw§n.m4ai;éi:11~:f11;§i:§§ .wa-§ ::z1.§$’ in the joint family. Th:
I–dcfi=:nc§ant– ‘ -\—- after the death ef
Puttaswa1:c£ai§3h,Vvlié of joint family and was
the properties. The I-defendant has
father late Puttaswamaih and younger
V’ ififiiéfendant were perfi:}rm1’ng poojas in Sri
V V’ _ Nanjundfishtvfia tcmpic.
” lands in survey No.85 and 1811, mcntinod in suit
fih)s.I(a) & (b) were endowed to Sri Nanjundcshwara
‘ ] * Swamy temple of Narayanaghatta. The mcfendam; ‘became
” Amhak ofsaid temple in the year 1965 and said lands were
*’f\}.
exclusively cultivated by l~defenda:£3.t. After K
Act, came into force. as I«dcfcndant.’ia§é1é’ ‘cI;1tivatfig’ bfizevvvsaxd’
lands personally, he was declare .33′ ” Id’ ~. 13″
The other members of family bf’ ‘V
concerned with Sri Narzj;;nde:}i1Ve;$i;€a’VV « or the lands
endowed to Sri —
5. Dining in older to avoid finthafi ' between his sons, into two equal shares shares to defendants 1 85
3. In the ” Eédefendant was allotted i acre 17
, é gang; efiand eIi”the__§QfatheIn side out ofitem No.I(c) of suit
The lands bearing survey Nos.4 as 5 of
Saxjapura Hobli and hafl pertiora in item
V L No.:i{a) ‘z$1:1§:ci” northem half porfion in Item No.Il(c) wm
tbsl~defe;1dant. Similarly, survey No.11/5, 11/6 and
of suzvey No.10 of Singena Agrahara and survey
-V +5.11 of Crotamamnahalli village, half portion of Item No.H(a)
* and haif p-mm in II((:) were allotted to III-defendant and 111-
of Singena Agrahara. Further, it is
, in older to have a Written document, a
_ pali1;:;§1t.1:i$__v’v¢’::2§§,-Q’ iampmea and both 1 85 1I1-dercndams have
H same. The I–defcnda11t has contended aflcr
of properties by late Puttaswamaiah bdcfendant did
‘ PQEI manage the suit scheduic properties. The Iildcfendant
took an iron safe and allowed I~defc11da:at to enjoy suit item
defendant was enjoying his sham ir1£i¢=3pen(5l.V<j;1f1""'::3.%s::r', u
smvey No.1 1 of Gofiam béléjagm,
katha was jointly standing in [the ;;;f
III. The Illflefendant sold of 'V
Rs.25,000]». At the tixnfiqf deed,
purchaser insisted that in execution
of 331:: dead " fire names of
defendants I:_.&.iivI and as requested
by III»§it=fcI_1'fis'3.'3sii;;»V'1–I III-defendant in
exacufiép of III–defendant weeivcd entire
consiiemfiegfi and"pu"fi in possession of land in
Sulvfjff' No.11.' 'Fh_é Véalev'was eficctfld to sink a bomwell in
No.II(a} in its entzircty. The I–de:fc:nda11t has sold away all t::fl
N M
'~ it is ' possession of the wife and children
7..Aof;. ;:ine_ son of Sonnappa of Sirzgcna
_ . T ‘,B1OHl€5’, Saki the property conditionally to one Obala
:ii”étit;i3r_. oviv'”‘ Narayanaghatta village, Anekai Taluk, for loan
by him. The said Obala Raddy was insisting said
V[ Veiikatappa to mtfunl the loan amount arid get back the
: property. At that point of time, said Venkatappa appmachcd
pmpertics except Iraamti Land. The I~dcfendag:’LT§V-:«..i’fi ”
possession of any of joint K V’
schedule item No.H(b) never belongfil u’V1v5i:¢: T~+_:«
defendant had aoquimd item D1t§.’Il(b) M *
away. The suit Items ,I_v(b)” 1 ééxclusivc
possession of 1–dcfend.’a;:_1._.i’:’– V acquired
properties. The was filod by
pLaintifi’s at thft — HI defendant.
Therefore, any xtalicf.
sf} ” :;”«he– .. .1153-_1t1<a'i»'s:},41::'dz:§:u;'t:n:i:'_' axscffilaa additional written
statcnzexvit aiiit. 110.1(0) is neither joint
property of défifidants are in posscssion of suit
The said Venkatappa was in need of
w. ~2»–£L.
h{j{::;§”:¢¢m 1(9) and she is iiving in that hut. The
I in schedule 1(0) is in possession of wife
2 _ ifif Venkatappa. Therefore, Ldefendant prayw
‘ ” – fro; disnfiissaz of game suit.
” Micfcndant, have adoptcd the written statczmcnt filed by I —
: V defendant. N; ,
Ifiefendant to pay the: loan amount to Obala ~
sale demi from Obala Raddy. Aooogxzligggly, ‘ V
lean amount to Obala Reddy and
in his ilavttmr. Thereafter, Ifiéxgu to ‘V
I–defcndant and mquestcé aa sale
deed. Unfortlmatcly, the death
0f Venkatappsyv ‘..’.,?,V.’=~V{%:’a’\:-I11en’£ in favour
of wife oonveycd the
executed in favour of
I–dcfbn(§_ant W35. without any possession.
At 110 – qf – or defendants were in
of v:.[11 fact. wife of Venkatappa has put
b’ Defendants 2, 4 an 5, who are the son and sisters of
1iff2IIiS>’I;(C.), Ifd) wen: sold to defendants 6 to 8
sale deeds in their faveur.
his two brothers have purchased
‘ pmgafiy at suit item No.I(d) under two sale deeds
§.21V..E)l.l984 and 09.08.1978 fmm L-defclmxiant.
defendant No.7 has purchased property shmm at
No.fl(a) under two sale deeds dated 22.02.19’2’9 and
1.09.198’? fnom bdcfemiant. Bcefcndant No.8 has purchased
8. Defendants 6 to 8 have filad the
statement» ‘ 1 A Iv
Defendants 6 to 8 have
joint possession of any items fif gait
itself is not £6 the
absolute ewners in posseésign fig}, 1 (:1) and H03)
and the same wart’ said der diflérent
registered sale ngieggaangs 7.1′ 5;» 2 are the absolute
mvners Qf family partition that
took plaige jsbint family. Defendants I as
2 were in phys}i:§a1 and enjoyment of suit
land nrwasurzing 1 acre 15 5’5 gnntas of land in airway No.10,
moQma»«L
hegconsuuctnd a building and obtained
to said pmperty. Defendant No.6 and
hizé purchased two items shown at suit item
N9.I(d) z improved the same by investing more than
«-; they have planted number of fruit bearing
and have dug a well. They have also izcastallsd S I-LP.
motor (pumpsct) in the auit item i(d). Defendant No.8, after
situate at Singena Agxahara Village, which has; ‘. V-
described at item No.I((“:} of plasint schadulc &e§afiea;1;sF%%_V ‘ ”
1 65 2. Accordingly, they are uf
respective pzmperties from pf fieéjds.
Dsfendants 6 to 8 have; ,.–¢;f;ntcgdngi is ‘1ié”exi.s:t§:£:3:}..aQwr>~’L ,
of coconut plants and raised a gaxden by
than E1.’s.2,0G,0£)0/-. The plaintiffs
fransactions in between defendants and.p’§}efendan331{s~~.Iv
85 II. Defendants 6 to 8 have to ‘V
avextments made above, f§y”de’fendants
6 to 8 from defendants I is}: the shares of
their vendors, _jf~::’f’.i.i£I’6 defies in favour of
plaintiffs.
9g’Cii}; trial Judge flamed
follciwinege _ise§1eS iesues: –
1. prove that sllit scheduie item
V, ‘V No.11! family properties of this famfly’?
V” E’=Wh”et1;er prove that they have also got
. performing pooja in Nanjundeshwara
Singena Agrahara, Saxjapura Hobli,
_;1aan-7ga1m~e Distri-::t’:’
3.V §&’hether the defendants 6, 7 and 8 pmve that they
are the bonafide purchasers under Iegetezed sale
deede in respect of Item Nos.I(c), I(d) and 11(3) for
valuabie oonsideratian?
4. Whether the defendants 6, 7 and 8 prove that after
purchase, they have improved the pm flies by
W ‘ ,_,.¢,-
Qudge has answered issues 1, 2, S as 6 in negative,
isV-‘aiucs 3 85 4 in afinnative. The lcalncd trial Judge answared
invesfing large amount as entered _
wfittcn statement? ». 4’ , ‘V
Whether the parties are enfifiied–fQ%’ fiifiéné
Whether the parties 8.I:’f:_€I1fifif3{ifO1′ 1 ‘ V’
What cider or decree?’
I’1E3’S-H
1. Whether the pléim fiff$– pimea’ suit schedule
pmpertics. are —- pmpczrties of
pIain§5afi”3«.§;:f1d d;:£e::;«;.1..éanta%’:*V’:n%5§é j’ V
2. Whcfiécr 8_ pmve that thézy are
btyzvlafiiiil-5 pwpefiiss for
M§§iua$Vi¢ c§§;§id§’r§tian;=_”‘ A V
$33.1, 2, 4 and 5 prove that
t’1ie1fc*WaVs partition in their joint family
1 ‘ ~ of Puttaswamaiah?
;_Al5:l1mA1;hcrV”Vi3:1::***’1j}aintiffs prove they are entitled to
and, scparafct possession of 10/3633 share
_ % 1 schedule properties?
‘ 5. ‘émer or decree?”
1UV.H i3y masoning of the impugned judmtznt. learned
N. c:>g’v–1″»/”‘&”*=u
additional issues I as 4 in negative, additional .
in affirmative and dismissed the Sufi;
11. The findings recoiiitiai. b3%=.nia1V as
foiIows:– _ ‘
Suit item Nos.I(a) grcquimd properties
of I–d¢:2fendant;. Then: w2as:T._ nest of suit
schedule A&. 111. Defendants
6 to 8 havei. from I-defendant
and H the same. With these
obsewatiflné;– lcamV ‘ “‘~ digmisscd the suit.
3 :1 haaVin’c.’..V_VV:1V1’t2a:it:’£ Sri Srinivas Raghavan, learned
%£9-.~%%%:%1:.3g1ntir1’s. 811′ H.R.Lakshman Raddy, learned
‘ff5r..:¢_ie:fif’:£:dants 1, 4 & 5 and Sri P.N.Na11ja Raddy,
‘ ‘ for defendant No.8.
” ~ VT ~..13.”‘i’he submissions of Learned Counsel for plainfifis
‘ as follows:–
” The suit item Nos.I(a) 65 103} were endowed to Sri
Nanjundeshwaxa temple of Nazayanaghatta. During
3
i
m _
the tiziae of late Puttaswamaiah, he _
puja of Sri Nanjundeewara te3ti;;3le;’
performirzxg pooja in the flies? it}:
Cxlltivation of lands
giant of féivqur ef”iAv-defendant
would enure to and all the
members age lands.
Under trial Judge
wags; £403.18] 1. 85 85 are
of I–defe11dant and the
eagme is enorieoize. .–
‘3]_’11’ere ie evidence to prove there Was
‘ * pf properties. The Learned trial
prop-er appmciatiozn of evidence,
A Ekcbinsiderafion of caontents of documents, has
hejd”A«:’t.here was partition of joint family properties
V’ v eenongst defendants I 65 III.
The leaznaed Counsel wouid smbmit in View of existence
of joint family and joint ihmiiy properties. I-defendant
did not have absolute rights over suit schedule
A,’ ‘___£’\_,/i._.«-5’/””””é
0% I
, éfazniifijei. 1e1emhere.” “-*§711jeJ;fefo1e, the learned trial Judge was
ju§3tified.Vi3:g there was partition of joint family
V .V wouia su§§;;1i£’inso£ax as suit items Ha} 85 Kb), which endowed
., Néiilitmdeshwaaa temple, Iwiefezndant, was the archak
H~__«ef.V’Vthe’;«i:emp1e sinm 1965. The f-{it’3fBII£3.aI1f was in ottzscupation
” offiiihe same and oectipancy rights were granted in favour of
‘ I~«defen<ia1:t. Thereforex, neither plaintifie nor Iiiwzmfendaztit
properties and defendants 6 to 8 are V'
purchasers. Therttfeze, learned; K x
impugned judgment calls far
14.T}:u=:iear11t=:d Counsel f<$i~e:.{:iefendve1i1$s; £4:
me through various dOC!1{fl'1§}11iS",'AV.i'.ii'}»' dated
08.11.1986 as per Ex.fi.:8 .*'1'.g}g:§-cment dated
08.08.1986 as Was; partition
of joint famzilfié 1 & 111. The
leamed "geneaiogical tree pmduced
by pmjnigfis (z33,;ef:1ée{i""1?).bears clinching evidence in
proof ef efeuit' properties amongst joint
defendants I & III. The learned Counsel
V. Dalgnbmissions made by learned Comrmel for
V VV . jHdgfi36I}§. .. . -.
and impugned judylcnt.
had any fight over suits 1(a) and H11). They K
occupancy rights granted in ‘
enure to the benefit of plaintiffs VV
learned Counsel woukl . t.:’2t% of ‘V
Puttaswamaiah, thcwv :”$:§{a$ _ of fié.1’1’i”i’ “SE-t:hwule
plopcltics. On 16.02.1§8%_;’ mduced into
writing, to Thereafter, I-
defendant mi firs; ‘1;q g pmjpcrties, which
had fiph;’tnt:1.:fi’s have no manner of
right o{rgr The learned Counsel
would j1iSf3T:§F’ fl1I3v
The &C:.’oun-scl for daihndants 6 to 8 have
and they have supported the impugned
I’fi,V__A!~ have been taken through oral and documentary
17. Having Ifigaré to contcnticns M
before trial (3ou;rt and reiterated ivlififdixz ¢_.;
pleadings, cviéencx: and findings
formulate foliowing points for 1
1. Whether triai C-.’»-:}.11rt was ‘iieldfzzg suit
iiem Nos.I(a) properties
of {defendant 0%’ No.3 had
nothing :10 with Ai*ihak’s%vi:>?% A
2. Whi:fi1¢§E’1é§i9§xfi<i:j'f§iiai'J1§dgé.§wésjusfificd in holding
thaf, '§aj{fitibfi"af tile rest of suit schedule
dcfttildants I 351"?
3. trial Judge has appieciated
‘ ‘V eviden-Ste pxbper perspective and arrived at right
. 5»-.C0nC111sionéf?””A
V recorded by lcamcd trial Judge
V interference? If so, what order?”
18..J’§’he plaintiffs have contended dining the lifetime of
he was the priest of Nanjuncieshwma
” tgggpxe; after the death of Puttaswamaiah, plaintiffs 1 55 2
u were perfomxing poo-ja in the temjphf: as priests and landa
endowed to tezmple were being cuitivattacl an bah of joint
I .= K
famiiy. Therefore, occupancy rights granted to M
the Land Txtibunal Vida Case No.LAQ’]
20.97.1982 would 6111.116 to the Vb¢}Ci€fi$_'():i7 1fiiemheii§”afVT’V.
joint: family. Therefore, suitit:eV1:1:1:$a;:’.E'{,s2A1b) 85 I{h) avé:£:é’b1e”:ror
partition. ‘ ‘ i
19. On evfience
1 find, during .1:396:’-31,’ii-de§§fi£1afit.T.¥vé$ appointed as
archak of he had received
Thastik:v’VVéiIl§5w.aV.i;:;e.«V’: not pm-cluced any
docu1z1e1 it t;)«..pIV’0VVt% féther Puttaswamiah was the
priestgf ~!”fiIXi})l§’iV–.aA}fif;1s post of priest was a heneditary
****
V ‘V issued by the Tahsiidar would show I~
titfffinitifliiflvii’ Thasiik allowance for Working as
‘ prics£ efV”‘N.afij’nndeshwaIa temple during the period between
“..j0i.(}?_,_19’§”0 and 30.§6.1990. The katha of land bearing
No.85 was made in the name of I–defenda11t. RTC
” mlating to survey No.85 for the years 1979-80 and
1980-81 as per Ex.D.iO would disclose land bearing survey
N. QQ»*\.~/V”””‘4%’r
dateti 06.02.1981. Thus, above due-ungentary b
reveal from the year 1965, ldefefiéefit’ was ‘1
Amhak of Nanjundeshwara temple ‘V
Iands in survey 1403.18/I as on
consideration of these decpmenfé wen’ ngh’ ts
in favour of I-defe11dant””};}3eIefa£e,:V of plaintiffs
that they were temple
as archaks iands in survey ‘
Nos. 13/ be
2q_”=F(;»u;e3¢V;§gséus;”z<do mt find any infimaxty' in the
fia:1ciing s_v mime .1sy trial Judge that suit item
* are properties of I-defendant.
point No. 1 in aifizmative.
: L21. Regazwgimgfegint No.2:
_ _T}:.1.ev..–E:~{iefend1e1;1t has cxmtendesd during the lifetime of
V’ Liege –.Piittaswamaiah, there was partition of joint family
: defendants I 65 H} were allotted their shares in
, Isuit schedule properties. The I-defisndant has not stated the
year during which partifion was effected. The Pdefendant
7\7= a
E£ig1i£at:gn~es«lll~dcfcndant. From the document
.. it is not clear as to Whether them was
‘-»decumE:1;f3~wou1d demonstrate that genuincness of document
;;1§i= fine fram doubts. If ‘(hi3 document had COKIC into
1. efiiistcncc can 08.11.1986, them was no impedilnent for 1-
dcfcndant to five particulars of this document in his written
has relied on palupatfi, which is stated to have. ._’
cxecutnd on 08.11.1986. In the written statcmcnfi ifihzl ‘
defcndallt on 05.01.1993, them is: “rm.-_ Ru
palupatii. Duzing the course of
marked through I»defcndanL’1V.’€Eé11;;pa1fi’-
does not make any mfcrgzjoc ggiiomcnt
of pmpertics ta pa11:ics,v\”a%r!zvV~.ic.t_: gifectcd by late
Puteaswamaiah. Tag jqf reveal it is
not the other hmld
recitals vsfo}11d.. in prescntfi-.,There am
sevemj . document. The stamp
paper w%:’s._ on 13.08.1986 and
docurxtcnjg wéis 08.1 1.1986. The p}.ai11tifl’s have
intezfentiifiiiyanchayatdaxs. A careful e;-ramination of this
TV! “flu g
had existence to evidence allotment of
pmpamd in two sets. Oonttmy to
£1115,’__’§1¢Ad’of¢ndnnt.1–:”h,as deposed that he obtained palupatti
_ There is no plwding that afier palnpatti
Lexoonfed, it was given to the custody of III–defcnda:nt.
has admitted that palupatfi contains several
1′ gnélpolafions, which an: not attested by parties. The
evidence of DW2, who is said to have prepared palupatti is
statement filed on 05.01.1993. It appears when H
statement was filed, Iwdcfsendant hri§dHmhis«
about this document. In the j:2tvt:1*ni-;*.1:1:1;_.*_3V_A.
statemtmt fiicd on
palupatti cazuw to ho These
avcrnaents certainly doufl 1 ‘to 08.11.1936.
Palupatti dated one side without
leaving any stamp paper and
it does not. schedule properties,
which jig T136 palupatti dated
{}8.11.19816~ document If the document
not satisfactory. DWI has deposed Ex.[). 18 was 3 panchayat
N LQWQ,
24
palupatti. DW2 has deposed except defendants V.
was pxeseznt at the time of prepaxah; “‘
palupatti. DW2 has depostfi that p.:a1upga:tfi:’w£i.*a_.’n ¢t’
by independent witnesses ana.i;mqid 155.: fiixform’
as III to have document attested It
is not in dispute as on dgfcndfififi I 83 II!
had major sons. Them to Show that
sons of {iCi’CIICi€”i.;VII’t’:’.L:§’;;I about execution
of V. V did not apply for
mutafioji’ ” of palupatti datcd
08.1 1. 1<V§3«5". 4.951— 1 hoki that lcamcd trial
Judgc _vsho1iln:¥ 'x::pVt' _ pfi any reliance on this
have relied on sale agreement
' _ mérkcd 53:3' stated to have bwn executed by plaintiifi
¥tI;dLI1f;Ci4fi?6ndant, 311 favour of one N. Venksataswamy Roddy
A lgianjunda Raddy of R villfige. Attibelc Hobli,
Taluk. In this dmument, it is mcitoct, sum-.y No.11
had faiicn to the share of Iif–defendan.t and Ilbdcfcndant and
25
plainfifib had agced {:0 Sell the same in A.
N.Venkataswamy Raddy, son of _’f9x. Q “‘ V
consideration of Rs.5o,ooo/– and 1I1:de£;e_zxa:an m
Rs.3,000j– as advmcc. In it
transaction should he e0;npletcd_ the
date of agmemcnt further
endorsements dated 151.1986 and
08.12.1986 tq ” 1 3s 11 had
received a V. :W’fl”V’V’;|.6 .Vl0.l986, a sum of
I?s.13.O€f35/ §% of Rs.1I.000[- on
08.12.1955′; it is stated plaintiffs and 111-
defendant emc”re(:Al’*. agecment of sale to sin’ k a
V’ sz1;vcyV No’;”i”iV. However, payment of consideration
_ii1$t’a§:1;a:nts would create a strong suspicion as to
document was executed. Plaintiflé 1 55
ana..i1;_-defendant an: aflegtzci to have received sale
A ‘~:iff”3E[1L§}i§.€I’ati9I1 in instalments, which would not serve purpose
_ sale: agreement. ‘ fi
A’ …..
to the contents ef Ex.P.17, it is
‘ _ this document was issued by a Village
However, the pmvision of law or autherity_
V by the statute on the Village Accountant to issue
in terms of Ex.P.13 is not made known to the
This document was issued on 26.10.1994. This
the family pmpezrties and III-defendant was giVCIi’V.’,1:!_;’;2i.’VfV’
in suit item No-Ilia). In this View of the nzattacr %
pieadeti by I-defendant calllzofibe -‘
Judge without referring to om} to V
find out the manner in .’wer§: ¢i’ea1£’with by
parties, entirely ‘V tree as per
Ex.P.1’7 has vpa.rtition of joint
family pmpeafies 1 as 3.
on the contents of
gencalogiisai tree =’Ex.P.17 has held there was
partition of jam: fa1i:i1jf’v.pe5.pcrfies amongst defendants 1 85
document apart from showing genealogr of family states
TU. ‘.
V. qf Iaiéfendant to the extant permissible by law.
ta quantification and allotlnent of
sachedutepmperties excluding items {(33 (35 {(13) am the sen’
3 properties of late Puttaswamaiah. Therefore,
V. –=. ‘dc§?olufio:n. of interest is governed by section 8 of the Hindu
Tsuccession. Act, 1956. From the evidcznec on record, it i3 not
32
partition amongst cicfendants I 85 HI. ‘l’hcreforc:, .
defendants; 6 to 8 cannot be
28. Defendants 7 81+’
improvements mack: by them Gftisiiit Qgthedulc
properties purchased 8 are
residents of the same of rights of
pxainws and suit schedule
propertrics. they are bonafidc
in the final dccme
pmceedilvvngé”, fizay seek allotment of suit
schedule by them fiom the I–defendant
shaffitfi, t’_ht:ATdiscuss:k)n made supra, I have held suit
possible to hold defendants 4 8:. 5 have abandoned their
Tu. C/L-«WK-‘ ‘
nights ix: suit scheduis pmpesrties. Therefoze, M
III–dcfcndant am trogcther ezatitlcd toj’1′]V4*1’
1, 4 and 5 are entitled to 114*
30. In the result, I pass V
The appeal is passed in
O.S.No.I6?[ 35 10:); is
ctemfinrnw. suit item Nc}s.I{c),
l(d), iI(a)._ .1.1(;§)V.,$g The plaintiffs and 111-
dcfcndeizgt –_Et’1IiflCd to 1/ 4*” share and
defenda.n,”£«s’*– égfiflcd ta 1/4″‘ share each in
suit ‘it.§é1j1s.I(c),V 1&1; (ay; 11 (b) and II (C). A pmnmmmy decme
accordingly. The trial Court shall hold ax:
c*:.1;1q”:iir_’§r Incsne profits in reap-act of suit items Kc),
_ [(d)A,”-I_I(a),_v’ii{1§}’find II((::). For want of proof, suit in respect of
iniovcalilczsl described in plaint schedule III is dismissed.
« regard to relationship of parties, they are directed to
their costs.
SNN