D S MAHALINGAPPA Vs. PARVATHAMMA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff in OS No 293 of 2004, on the file of court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr Dn) & CJM, Davangere, is for the reason that under the impugned judgment and decree dated 20-6-2005 passed in the said suit by the trial court, appellant-plaintiff is denied his share i.e. 8/42nd share in suit schedule item No 1 property while such share is given in suit schedule item No 2 property.

(2.) The suit of the plaintiff was one for partition, share and separate possession of the plaintiff's 8/42nd share in two items of suit schedule properties. The share was claimed on the premise that the properties were joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 sons of the propositor of the family by name Sharanappa. Sixth defendant is the sister of plaintiff. There was another son to Sharanappa by name Lokesh, who, by executing a release deed dated 21-8- 1989, relinquished his rights over the joint family properties by receiving a sum of Rs 40,000/- and had gone out of the family, but the remaining members are continued as members of the joint family even after the death of their father Sharanappa in the year 1992; that the sixth defendant being not a member or coparcener is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties; defendants 7 to 9 are tenants to the suit schedule properties; that the plaintiff is working at Harihar and residing there; that the defendants having not responded positively with regard to the income from the joint family properties and having given evasive answers, also not accounting properly for the income received from the lodging section which being run in the suit schedule properties, had demanded for partition of his share, but the defendants kept on postponing on lame excuses and therefore the suit for partition, share and separate possession of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and also for share in the profits from the date of suit till granting of the share of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties with costs.

(3.) On notice to the defendants, defendants 1 to 6 entered appearance through counsel, defendants 7 and 8 were placed ex parte and the suit against ninth defendant was dismissed as per a memo.