CHANDRASHEKARAIAH Vs. RANGAPPA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed challenging the Judgment dated 8.4.2005 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge [Sr. Dn], Tumkur in O.S. No. 26/1998 dismissing the suit of the plaintiff seeking for a partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.

(2.) THE plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants alleging that the plaint schedule property belonged to one Venkatappa, who is the propositus. The said Venkatappa had three sons by name Rangappa -first defendant, Mudlaiah, who has died unmarried and Shivanna the second defendant. The sons of late Venkatappa constituted Hindu undivided joint family and they are in joint possession of the suit properties. The first defendant is none other than the father of the plaintiff and according to the plaintiff, the first defendant has got half share in the schedule property and the second defendant has also got half share in the schedule property. It is further submitted by him that the first defendant has two sons by name Chandrashekaraiah -the plaintiff and late Rudraiah through the first wife -Rangamma. Defendants No. 3 and 4 are also the sons of defendant No. 1 through the second wife -Gowramma, who is now arrayed as respondent No. 5. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It is further submitted that the first defendant has managing the joint family properties and affairs of the joint family as being the eldest son of the family. The first defendant has deserted his first wife without any reasonable cause and had taken second wife about 29 years back. During the lifetime of first wife, the second marriage had been entered into and defendants No. 3 and 4 are born to them. Since the marriage is illegal, the plaintiff submits that they are not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, they have sought for partition in the suit schedule properties since defendant No. 1 when demanded, did not allot the share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties.

(3.) THE trial Court after perusing the plaint and written statement had framed the following issues: -