GEETHA MURTHY Vs. SAROJAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed by the defendant No.8 in O.S.No.182/2009, pending trial before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court' for short) challenging an order dtd. 8/7/2019 by which an application filed by him under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC' for short) was rejected.

(2.) The suit in O.S.No.182/2009 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties. The dispute in the present petition relates to the land bearing Sy. No.228/2 of Kaggalipura Village, Utharahalli Hobli, Bengaluru Taluk measuring 3 acres, which was suit item No.5 in O.S.No.182/2009 and is henceforth referred as "property in dispute". The plaintiffs claimed that the property in dispute was a joint family property. They claimed that Gunda Sanjeevaiah was the propositus and the defendant Nos.1 to 3, plaintiffs and their four sisters constituted the joint family. The plaintiffs are the daughters of Gunda Sanjeevaiah. They claimed that their father had assured one share in joint family estate to each of them but he died in the year 1981 without devising the properties. The mother of the plaintiffs died during 1998. The plaintiffs claimed that they were therefore entitled to an undivided right, title and interest in the schedule properties. They further alleged that their father Gunda Sanjeevaiah had executed a conditional sale of suit item No.5 to Byatappa, to meet his financial needs. They claimed that Byatappa had agreed to re-convey it after the loan was repaid. However, since Gunda Sanjeevaiah died, Byatappa executed an illegal sale deed in favour of Krishnappa, who in turn sold it to the defendant No.8 in the year 1994. They claimed that they were not bound by these sale deeds and therefore sought for partition of their 1/6th share in the suit properties.

(3.) The defendant No.8 contested the suit and claimed that the plaintiffs have no subsisting right, title and interest in view of the fact that the father of the plaintiffs had sold the said property in the year 1975 to a person by named Byatappa, who sold it to K.S.Krishnappa in the year 1988, who in turn, sold it to the defendant No.8 in terms of a sale deed dtd. 16/9/1994.