V. MOHANSUNDARAM Vs. V. VASUDEVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant. The respondents, though served, remain unrepresented. The appellant was the plaintiff before the trial court. It was the case of the plaintiff that the property described in the suit schedule belonged to his father C. Venugopal, who had four sons, including the appellant. His father had two wives. The appellant claims as the son of the first wife and the property set out in the suit schedule, bearing No. 121, Reddy Palya, Vimanapura Post, Bangalore - 560 017 was in the occupation of his father, prior to his death, without any disturbance. The same was allotted to him by the Hindustan Aeronautics Sanitary Board and a possession certificate or a hakku patra was issued in the year 1992 -93. It is stated that Venugopal, the father of the appellant and the appellant as well as his brothers were all residing together in the said premises, which was constructed by Venugopal in the year 1954 itself and further extension of the house was in the year 1960, which extended into the neighbouring property and the constructed portion measured 15 feet x 20 feet. As already stated, the plaintiff was living along with his father and in a portion of the premises, had constructed a shop measuring 15 feet x 10 feet in the year 1980 and he had spent his own earnings and was running a petty shop in the said extent of property. He was married in the year 1990 and he was no longer able to live with his father and other brothers after his marriage and therefore, built a separate residence in the adjoining property, which had been acquired by him. It is his case that the suit schedule property was in the joint possession and enjoyment of all the parties as joint family members and the had, out of sympathy for his younger brother, respondent No. 3, had handed over the shop, as he was unemployed. With the death of his father in the year 1994, the plaintiff was sought to be deprived of his share in the suit property. It is that which was the cause of action for the suit and therefore, had sought division of the suit property into four equal shares and for allotment of one -fourth share on the basis that it was a joint family property and of which, the appellant was entitled to a share.

(2.) FROM a bare reading of the pleadings, it is evident that the property could not be construed as joint family property as admittedly, the property was in the occupation of his father in his individual capacity and it was allotted or such possession had been recognised by the local Hindustan Aeronautics Sanitary Board by issuing a hakku patra and on the basis of the said hakku patra, the appellant seeking to claim that the property was joint family property, was not tenable. In any event, the original of the said document could not be produced by the plaintiff before the trial court and the trial court has summarily dismissed the suit on the ground that the property in question could not be construed as joint family property. In that view of the matter, the present appeal does not merit consideration having regard to the above facts and circumstances and the appeal is dismissed.