IN THE HIGH COURT OF A':
DATED THIS THE 943? %
THE HON'BLE M1§."'Ji}ST}ZQIi, BYRA1§.E1)DY
REG:;1.;;ARF1I:sT 1993
BETWEEN' % '
1. Sri H.'L'§Srir§iivas££fifi~u;5£-4
Aged ahGutV53.y§»érs -- .
SI' 0.M.«LalLsh1nip:i_i_i1i :3*».'.»_{"l' 3+,' '
Merch3nI_s,%A Resfidchts >5)?' '
Hiriyur Téiwvja, Ckilr-adnijga District
. "2, Gupta
' "Aged ab0:3t" 5.1 ywrs
._ *ISizi<;a: by his
A L*egai Repraésentafives:
*3) A 'Swamnamba
Wio.Latc H.L. Ananthapadmanabha
Gupta
Aged about 52 years
Residing at No.23, 7*' Main,
Near Yogeshwara Apartments
Hosakerehalli, Bangainre ~-- 560 085
3
b) Janardhana
Sfo.Latc H.L. Ananflmpadmanabha
Gupta
Aged ::tbou134 years
Residing at No.23, 7"' Main, é
N63! Yugcshwara _
Hosakerchalli, Bangalore --~ G85
S/0.Late I*I.L.¢/\11anthapadimvirL£!».l_3ha " I
Agtxl about 30 _ ; _
Residing at No.23, '}'-'"_Main; " V '
Near Yugges}1wa.t*.ei'I*;;3:.43'!_rrie.1{§!s . »
fiosakéreiiaiii, B'2anga3ére'"--~_560"O8.§ APPELLANTS
(By Advocates)
AND: A % V %
1. S;i_§§}'!'.L.Sri¢Tlhém§VV(§up£ a
V' . about 48
' A 'S/9.Mv.Lak$hm_ipalI1i Sully
of
" Hiriyur' Chilradurga District
:2. sg¥i.H.L.1<aga:a5
.. Agedabeut 45 years
" _Sfcy..M.T.ak"shmipa1hi Setty
hticfchanis, Residuals of
Hiriyur Town, Chitradurga Disnict
. Sri.H.L.Guvindardja Gupta
Major
SI'u.M.Lakshmipa1hi Salty
3
Merchants, Residents of « __ S _,_
Hiriyur Town, Chitradurga District 1 4_
{By Shri.RaInesh.P.KuIkami, Admaxe for 2 n
Shri.R.Chandra:ma, for Respondent 'No.25 eahd'eeReSp0néejn§ HQQ3
served) . V’ V ‘~
i=.=a=ei=–§_=__:c:
This Regular Firs1__Appea1__isV: fiI_ed_»_vunder’ «Sectiqél 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure;__1~9G8,_«’Aagainst tilieeiudgenietit and decree
dated 23.04.93 in the Civil Judge,
Chitradurga, dismissing H_1;l_1V'<'v:*. .._suit : fe'r~~.Vp3§riit§'on and separate
Ebssession. A ' . –
This feasting been heard and reserved
on 16.06.2009 ‘am3_con:ing”‘v{)n fiir fironouncemcnt of Judgment
this day,’ ‘”l§ie’C§mrt difiiivered’-the fi)’1icr’\”».ri:1g,:-
A Heard fiir jc::;i1i3s;§2:I for the parties.
_ are referred to by their rank before the trial
4: sake uf convenience.
H The appeal is by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs no. I and 2
defendants no.1, 2 and 3 are all was of late Lakshmipalhi
5
In the year 1967 a mew firm in the fitilfitt of “Sri Ganssha
Trading Cumpsngf’ was commenced. The firs! »~sli:$<:9nd
defendant and {Wu strangers to the family ware
in that firm. After about 10 months di.!I'srr:%nces's§i5se: V' r
sluod uscunstiiulcd with the
plaintiff being inducted as a is their
plsinLi{T was actively Vmsnagéfig * busiriesses: and [he
defisndanis were dormant for the business
had alwsys family funds. In 1970 3. brother
cf the and Dufcndanls? 1&2 got
_ lhcmsslses reicsscsfifrots the firm Ganesha Trading Company on
Capital. No funds were given to the first
partition of the business.
.. rnuvabic properiy dtsscribcsd under Schedule ‘B’ 8:. ‘C’
‘{L%VVlhc’i3l’sint were also acquired Burn the: juint family funds.
%
This first plaintiff is said to have been cxpeilcd {he
joint family residcncc: in the year 1970 and was dcnigii _
A
the family properiiczs. It is stated that i§;:.~.’pilt: c3{“ii rag =
to contribute to the family busincsagiss l% l’i? “I
Sectmd plaintiff was alsu expei1Vlf5c1..VfIu;:fiv-i}1c.I}§;i§fi’ii’jg(_:’§:Vs3n:{: gn.z f%
denied his share of the property.
It is alleged lhat til the insianct: uf
mac J.R.Ashwa_thzi§:rayaa駧VV’ the terms of
véifi§”‘&§;:istt:nc:: of plainfiff no.1 ~
huwevcr, ~ih&i– {H31 an-{ed upun. Later the father of
lhfi’ plaintiffs s§zid-in éifcctud at parliliun in the year I9′?9
‘whiéiz (mag rvgi§$ie11:¢ The: pxamam xvcrc: nu: Piiriics to am
s;a.¥11¢:_,V lhcrein. It was alleged that the Scuund
4 his sislrsfis daughter and was thus able: to
” H influence over his father and lhus kepi him along with
his death, in 3986. And during this pcriud has cwcn
T their falhcr lu csxmzuie a will bequcathing vaxiuus
Z
M
plainiilll; that he has been excluded fmm lhc juini family’ was
denied a sham as early as in I970. The pkaa urm
claim of adverse posscssiun by the other that. 9
[hertz was no positive: action uf uusltsrfis nr.-tef, ;i:nabIé:~.ai3¢1 be
pressed into service.
7. The several Cijuiisel for the
appellant wuuid not apply’ a*$l*~;§éiév¢$_;–Vwhich turn an 111::
facts limrcin anti gameicgl t:5i”.1:§1§.;’i’a::–t:;sun mud.
The Qbyfisgl has mlitsd on 2»: large number
of aulhu_2i£it;3 in $upp’ori’his’cun1cniiuns:
Parzickzm vs. Vehmgpi Kztnji, AIR 1953
‘~».Rad}rué’zq_A’&3e:loba Vagiz and oiherts vs. Abumo Bhagvmntnw
cmdalhem, AIR I929P.C’. 2347
Chettzyar vs. Kathwsdztpanbi Chetfiiar and
VV anaiher, AIR 1927Ar{ac!rus 111
%
15
ikfczllzczri Hznzzzrz Kranrznrcmt and vfherzx vs.
Kramczvani and oihers, AIR I929 Bombay 3&3 ‘
Goumrnga Saba amd others vs . Bhaga: u ‘ x
1976 Orissa 43
Reliance is placed an iizcfzzlzyuvcz .2k:!.§hear§£ie;:s “i1§IV”sa2g7:;iurl of V
the uuntcnlioxl that ii,» is 1:cii!Ie:*;’–..’t::i:t:’3;:-:»;f.~;t: of first .p IainliiT not
111:: case of sccund dcf:§1id_é1n{ £f:idt:;cc is adduccad to
show that thy: ;c»A1.;:V1i _1xtifliA_11u.:_’1′ iii-s [he suit schcdnlt:
prupétfies; uf’advt:rsc pusamssion or ouster or
cxt:lusi¢3fi»…t_5I’.vI’1Vi*3.1_ 4V1:;~.Iain:fiIT from joint family pmpcrlics in
\f€ti:§.le;z_1 s1.;;ium¢i1£v!x2.m:h less any evidence in terms of Article:
‘ the suit is barred by time. The totality of the
.’ iytfilplainl and evidence of PW~i, the firs! plainiifi’
unfy’ gsfiuws that he was expcsflcd fmrn join! famiiy residence:
lhiii (hart: was sumc; panchayatflis and that rtssgxmdcnis
promised to give share but did not give and hence he was
compelled tux file the suit, Exsciusiun cuntcmpiaied under
‘é
16
article 110 is a cunsciuus and deliberate: act on the part of ulhtzr
side amuunting 1:.) denial of right of plainfiff and lhgai such
cxulusinn bccmnes known 1:; plainiiffl
As is evident from the pleadings
circumstances, it is plain thal the V ‘
from the family home and awarding
share — hence: limitation 1ht:
suii is barred under I I963.
.P.LaI;.»,-xngi Ag-; Redazy, AIR 1957 Supreme
C’0?I*§t31}1%%%%L’ AA X
. % A,sgé;ls;:t:»*z§¢;.::% <3u14z;;¢;»¢me zidbhiuzlzlin and athem: 12.;-. Syed Shah
AIR 19?] Szgpreme Court 2184
vs. A<{ohclScz_32eed and zmolher, AIR 1981
.A Court ,7?
” vs. K.Domisa:r;y, AIR 1996 Supreme Cctzurt 1724
V’ ” Sing}? and o£her.s* vs. Gufiar Sirgh and o£}w?:s, AIR
2002 Supreme Court 606
g
17
In support of the wnicnlion that possession «;:>1″‘=s)_h;:’V’a,f’o~
owner or on-sham! is possession of other
and men: possession by other forféiiy”
participation in rent and profits, mul§iiioi§–
shamrs would not amount to other,' that is appellant no.1 in the af§pollan1's right is no1z:x[inguis_hcdA._ This j_ or1vl ' 'ofizonlcxt. The above
proposiiion : Chore is no axpulsion of a co-
parccncr ioui:i_:;Vi<.noihr'icd;_;t§. V .
,{\fl}I£,;x.'*zzH1muuIl7E":'& o __kaz" gas;;mzm» Shaikh And Othem vs. Abdulla
i{os::;;§:b}oii"f'§?zfi?if}:.:3;§;' (2004) 13 SCC' 335
_ – and another tax. ML. Sztblmraya Salty And
14 , 4; ; T ' V. Qghepzs, }«11R 1972 Sttpreme Cam 1279
Nagappa Divate vs. Vlslrvamzlhsa Rurnchtmclrustz
k T Kczbacli, AIR 1943 Bombay 419
%
Hi
– Sml. Lajwanf Kaz:rAncI cmolher vs. Abnzwhi Singh
AIR 19?9P &H268
– Kumarappa Chettiar and Olirers vs.
ozhm, 11.12 42 Alczdraztx Series 43;?
Rclying on the said authm_*itit:s,t’it contcizdcii tthzit i’:’\;t:2.’iQ
uthcrwisc: in view of the contantitni’ by defendant
and the findings trial (,–1n”ui*-t_’t”!1.z’1tt was scsveranee
in status gr 1;;-st .p1ainiivft7–Vi§i_ t%t197q,tt%t5e ‘vfilainfifi beuemcs
tenants fkrliclc 110 is not applicable
but A.r!icAi’t:_65_is’utii;té:V’atjpIi§3bic in which event also unless the
dcfcn£;ia3:tA.plfi§§d’-.va;id”‘prt5’vcadverse posstsssiun the first piaintiff
ctéiaigd the share and the trial court ought to have
and granted decree for partition on the plea uf
V . df-tfexiitant himself and faiium to consider the 531113
” ” v . judgmcnt unsustainable.
b’ This proposition is 313:: rarrvnmousiy pressed into service.
distinction ought to be made: (sf of a cu-pawtzncry
3’9
enjoying properly jointly and that of cu-wnc:rs in of
whom alone: the cunccpt uf advcrsc possession maynbfi»
Hence, the contention 1ha1A:£icl¢: 65 ought lu
a? Firm Srim’wa.s Ram Kumar vs.
.4112 1951 Supreme Caurt177: ° =
In support of the ;;ran1o<! on
the case :3? defendant piaintiif.
Though the’ ..i1:V.fi:2¥v’nnu1 be said that it
can be in hand.
5:) }t@. Kulita mm’ Others, (2004) I
~ 3};-. and/inother, (1993) 1 SCC 614
In suyépnrl of the contention that no gfmrtiliun of suii
fzrupcrlics has lakcn place by males and bounds and w
H _1fu.: suit ought lo have been decreed in the absence of plea
3
21
other cxrparccncrs. However, in the cast: on hazztgnit
piaintiffs own assesrtion that ht: was c;:gg:l»;1dod_- st’ »
share in the joint family property, the stititivist
limitation. Hence, there is tho the’ V
trial court in having dismissed vthe:§oit'”L»_t’ the Atpiaintiff as being
barred by limitation.
Insotlar the trial court having fuogjct in the year 1976 itself, said 'a;1I'irxi1od.
Howcvof, porttttg with the case-., it is to be seen that
of and the defendants, have died
of the proceedings and that they have
_l’t7£3t3i§*”‘3(.t ;:;a’:”é.);2w.-j.-“i*ty in the course of partition as bctwccn the:
4′ , éigrmdanogna the ram father of the ptatnms.
By virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act,
» 4956 and in the absence: of any testamentary disposition having
g
22
been established in the course: of prucctsdings, the plai11fiII’s”–__wuuId
be entitled alungwith the dcfundanis and their sislcr§j9″”
the pmperiy Id’! behind by the: parents. 11 is meg-gaggg apmme
[11:11 the plaintiffs and lhc defendant;
apportioned their ncspccfivc shaV1iv..-34.91′ iliTc._;»§i0pcr1ig.§S–M. *’
their parents in appropriate final
In the reach, the app£:£1i is a}3′(§xéIc;'{A:ir: terms as about
and the judgmeg1i’fi;§;i_’ Z: hccurdingly.
3d/5.-.§
Iudéé