YESHODA Vs. SINDHURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition at the instance of the defendants in Original Suit No. 262 of 2000 is directed against the order dated 22-2-2000 passed on Interim Application No. 6 on the file of the Principal Civil judge (Senior Division), Mangalore, whereby the learned Trial Judge rejected the said application filed under Order 7, Rule 11 of the CPC and declined the prayer of the petitioners-defendants.

(2.) THE brief facts are that respondents 1 and 2 were minors and they were represented by their guardian mother and filed the suit against the petitioners-defendants and the third respondent herein who is their father and the plaintiffs-respondents are seeking for declaration that they are entitled to l/6th share in the suit schedule properties, for rendition of accounts and for granting decree by delivery of possession of their share in the suit schedule properties.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiffs-respondents is that the properties come out of the ancestral nucleus with improvement and enlarged by their grandfather late V. Vasudeva Rao and the said Vasudeva Rao having died in the year 1977 and who was the Yejman and Kartha of the family and who had constituted joint family along with his brother one V. Narayana Rao being the sons of late Venkatachalayya and a partition between Vasudeva Rao and Narayana Rao effected in the year 1976. Properties being joint family properties are required to be shared among all the members of the family and the plaintiffs-respondents having equal coparcenary rights in view of the provisions under Section 6-A of the Hindu Succession Act as amended by Karnataka Amendment in 1994, they are entitled for their share in the joint family properties and they have sought for the same. The averment in the plaint is that the defendants taking advantage of the docile nature of their father, have been enjoying the entire properties and managing the entire properties and the plaintiffs-respondents have been deprived of their legitimate share in the joint family properties. The other plaint averments are that the joint family properties were being mismanaged particularly a restaurant which was being run by the grandfather was being handed over by the defendants-petitioners to others and to the detriment of the plaintiffs-respondents and as such the plaintiffs were compelled to institute the suit through their mother and natural guardian even during the minority itself.