V. SHANKARA RAO Vs. V. ESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's first appeal. The plaintiff's suit was for partition and separate possession of his 1/6th share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff also sought the relief of declaration in respect of a sale deed executed by defendants 1 to 5 in favour of defendant no. 6, and to declare that it did not bind him. The defendants 1 to 4 were the brothers and sister of the plaintiff and defendant no.5 was his mother. Defendant no.6 was the purchaser of the suit property. The suit schedule property was a house bearing No.65, built on part of land in Survey No.1/2 of Lottegollahalli, Bangalore north taluk, measuring about 60 feet by 40 feet. The suit property had been sold by defendants 1 to 5 in favour of defendant no. 6 under a registered sale deed dated 29.6.2006.

(2.) It was the plaintiff's case that the suit property was purchased by his father under a sale deed dated 13.4.1977. He had died intestate. The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 succeeded to his estate and were thus entitled to 1/6th share each, in the suit property. As the same had been sold excluding him, the sale deed was not binding on him. The plaintiff had filed the suit immediately on learning about the transaction.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants. Defendants 1 to 5 in their written statement contended, that it was true that the plaintiff was the son of late Venkoba Rao. But when the plaintiff was eight months old he had been given in adoption to Shyam Rao and Manu Bai. The latter was the maternal aunt of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 and the sister of defendant no.5. She had no children of her own. The plaintiff had lived with his adoptive parents at Doddaganjur throughout his life and had ceased to be a member of the defendants' family. The plaintiff was married and had settled down at the very place. He had inherited extensive properties of his adoptive parents on their death. It was hence denied that the plaintiff had any claim over the suit property. It was claimed that the property had been sold for a legal necessity.