M A RAJU Vs. ANNAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Judge, Mandya in R. A. No. 50/94 arising out of the Judgment and Decree passed in O. S. No. 114/91 on the file of Addl. Civil Judge, Mandya. The appellant is the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The suit came to be dismissed and the consequent appeal is also dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present second appeal is filed.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff's contention, he constituted a joint family along with the defendants 1 to 3. The joint family owned around 7 acres of wet land. The first defendant is the father. The second defendant is his mother and the third defendant is the elder brother. It is said that the father and elder brother of the plaintiff found that the property could be conveniently managed by the plaintiff. Therefore, executed a power of attorney to manage the joint family properties. During the course of management of joint family properties, three lands came to be purchased. One land was purchased in the name of the plaintiff. One land was purchased in the name of the third defendant and the suit land was purchased in the name of the second defendant under a registered sale deed for a consideration of Rs. 12,000/ -. The plaintiff contends that the family was owning sufficient large extent of wet lands generating sufficient income and around the time of purchase five house sites belonging to the joint family came to be sold. The funds realised from the said sale and with the surplus funds of the joint family the suit land and the other two lands came to be purchased. On account of the differences between the family members, a partition took place. Under the partition marked at Ex. P5, the properties were divided among the members of the family. Apart from the other properties, the suit land was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. Similarly, the properties have been allotted jointly to defendants 1 and 2 and properties were separately allotted to the third defendant. The instrument effecting division of property has been described by the plaintiff in the pleadings as family settlement evidencing the record of a past oral transaction between the parties. By virtue of allotment of properties under Ex. P5 the plaintiff claims lawful possession and enjoyment of the property as the owner and allege illegal interference on the part of defendants and further contends that the second defendant has illegally alienated the property in favour of the 4th defendant, who is the stranger to the joint family. Hence, seek declaration of title and injunction.

(3.) THE defendants 1 to 3 have filed common written statement. It is contended that the suit land is purchased by the second defendant by pleading the gold belonging to her and from the income earned by her from milk vending and specifically contends the suit property is purchased without the aid of joint family funds. It is further contended that by employing intermediary tactics and coercion, the signatures of the 2nd defendant is obtained on some blank papers and the same is concocted as a palupatti.