DANDAPPA RUDRAPPA HAMPALI Vs. RENUKAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is by defendants 1 to 8 and 17. The first respondent is the plaintiff. The suit is one for partition on the ground that all the properties described in the schedule to the plaint belonged to the joint family of the plaintiff, the first defendant, 9th defendant and 13th defendant as well as the children of some of the defendants.

(2.) . To appreciate the facts, it is necessary to note that Rudrappa was the father of the plaintiff, the first defendant, 9th defendant and 13th defendant. The plaintiff asserted that the joint family earlier represented by Rudrappa had some property and family business and he died in the year 1936. The Hindu undivided family continued even after his death enjoying the joint family properties and that the family business was extended at Hirekerur, Shimoga and Haramagatta. According to the plaint, a capital of over Rs. 2 1/2 lakhs has been invested for the business. The plaint also asserts that out of the joint family business and the property, several other properties were acquired. Para 4 of the plaint states that defendants 1, 9 and 13 continued to possess 100 tolas of gold and other moveables valued at about Rs. 25,000/- as well as the articles connected with the family business. They also continued to carry on the business of money lending. According to the plaintiff, his elder brothers are clever and therefore some of the properties were purchased in the names of their wives and children. Plaintiff claims partition and allotment of his 1/4th share in the entire properties.

(3.) The first defendant is the main contesting defendant. He denied that Rudrappa was carrying on any family business and that Rudrappa was also carrying on any money lending business. Rudrappa had left only one item of property described in item 1-D, that is to say, a house property in Tumminakatta (hereinafter referred to as the 'house property'). According to the first defendant, this property did not yield any income and that the children of Rudrappa were eking out their livelihood by doing coolie work. First defendant came to Hirekerur without any ancestral property with him, and with the help of some people started his business in areca and tobacco. This business he was carrying on, according to him, in weekly shandies. With great difficulty he was living in Sunakalbidri village of Ranebennur taluk for 4 years and thereafter, as he could not improve, he shifted to Hadiyal village where he was living for about 8 years. Again, he had to shift from the said village to Hirekerur and continued to carry on the business as hitherto, but he was finding it difficult to maintain his family comprised of his wife (2nd defendant) and 3 children. According to him, his children (defendants 3 to 8) carried on the business intelligently and out of this, some properties were acquired. This included about 15 acres of agricultural land. These were acquired out of the earnings of his children. The first defendant asserted that he did not receive any property (whether moveable or immoveable) or income left by Rudrappa. The property standing in his name and in the name of his children were acquired out of their respective earnings and therefore none else has any right over those properties. The second defendant is the wife of the first defendant and she had purchased a vacant site from her own funds and the first defendant built a house on the said site by spending about Rs. 3,000/.-. According to the first defendant, his sons also had the benefit of the jewellery brought by their respective wives. It is the case of the first defendant that the 9th defendant came to Hirekerur village to carry on his livelihood and he was residing in a rental house obtained from one Rajanna Ganji. The 9th defendant was carrying on the business in areca and tobacco independently. Since he could not prosper there, 9th defendant went to Davangere and thereafter shifted to Shimoga and continues to live in Shimoga carrying on his trade. 9th defendant has built two R.C.C. buildings in Shimoga valued by the first defendant at rupees one lakh to one-and-a-half lakhs. According to the first defendant, the 13th defendant has been carrying on the business independently in Haramaghatta village in Shimoga District since about 1970-71. The first defendant stated that the plaintiff was never employed, though he was clever, intelligent and educated and that he was projecting himself as a man of letters and was deceiving the people to earn money. The plaintiff's case in its entirety was denied by the first defendant. The 2nd defendant is the wife of the first defendant and defendants 3 to 8 are their children. 14th defendant is the wife of 13th defendant and defendants 15 and 16 are their children. Defendants 10 and 11 are the children of 9th defendant. 17th defendant is the wife of 4th defendant.