JAYAMMA Vs. LAKSHMIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third defendant in the suit is the appellant. She has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court decreeing the suit for partition in respect of a property described in schedule-III to the plaint. She is a purchaser of the property from the first defendant on 18.01.1980.

(2.) The plaintiffs 1 to 3 are all the sons of first defendant. The second defendant was another son of the first defendant; he was unmarried and died during pendency of the suit. Defendants 4 to 6 are the daughters of the first defendant. The plaintiffs claimed partition in the properties described in schedules-I to VI of the plaint. Schedules-I to III consist of house properties, schedule-V comprises of agricultural land at Channapura Village and in schedule-IV movables such as jewellery and vessels are shown. Schedule-VI consists of some fixed deposits at Canara Bank and Bangalore Central Co-operative Bank. According to the plaintiffs all the schedule properties belong to the joint family consisting of themselves and defendants 1 and 2. They stated that on 5.10.1944 there took place a partition of ancestral properties between their father i.e., the first defendant and his three brothers. In the said partition, schedule-II property was allotted to the first defendant. The partition deed contains a recital that the first defendant and his brothers had already effected partition of the properties at the village Channapura and the house at Bengaluru was not partitioned and therefore on 5.10.1944 partition of this house took place. They stated that the first defendant acquired other schedule properties with the aid of income derived from the properties at the village and rental income from item no. II.

(3.) The defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 filed written statement contending very specifically that defendant no. 1 earned properties at Bengaluru from his own income. He also raised loan for construction of a house. They denied that the schedule properties belonged to joint family. With respect to schedule-Ill property, they contended that the first defendant sold it to the third defendant on 18.01.1980 for sale consideration of Rs. 14,000/- as he was to discharge a loan. They also stated that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim share in schedule-V property and that schedule-IV property did not exist at all.