M R RAJASEKHARAPPA Vs. H N SIDDANANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal by the Appellant-Plaintiffs is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 12-4-1976 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kolar, in O.S.No. 18/1966 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their one-half share in the joint family properties including those properties comprised in Schedules-A and B annexed to the plaint. In this Judgment, the parties herein will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants respectively. 1.1. On the date the Karnataka Act 13 of 1989 came into force, this Appeal was heard and reserved for Judgment. A memo dated 12-3-1990 was filed by the respondents stating that in the light of the provisions contained in Section 4 of Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1989, the appeal has stood transferred to the District Court. On the memo, both the sides were heard. Both the sides agreed that as the appeal has been heard earlier to coming into force of Karnataka Act 13 of 1989 and as it is a very old matter, though the appeal has statutorily stood transferred to the District Court, it may be withdrawn and be decided by this Court. Accordingly, we passed an order on 14-3-1990 treating this appeal as statutorily transferred to the District Court, Kolar and withdrew it in exercise of our power under Section 24(1)(b) of the C.P. Code, in the interest of justice and to avoid further delay. Both the sides also further submitted that they had no further arguments to advance. Hence we proceed to decide this appeal.

(2.) The plaintiffs during the course of trial, examined plaintiff No. 1 as P.W.6 and 5 other witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 5 and got Exhibits P-1 to P-12 marked. The defendants examined defendant No. 1 as D.W.22 and 21 other witnesses as D.Ws.1 to 21 and got Exhibits D-1 to D-86 marked.

(3.) The trial Court, on appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has answered issues 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 11 in the affirmative and rest of the issues in the negative. It has accordingly dismissed the suit. Thus the trial Court has held that the plaintiffs have failed to establish that they and the defendants were the members of a Hindu joint family and defendant No. 1 was the Manager of the said joint family; that the alleged joint family possessed sufficient nucleus for acquiring the properties.