C V SATHYANANDA Vs. C V RANGAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.4472/1980 dated 9.8.2002 on the file of the II Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. 13

(2.) THE suit was one for declaration, declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for 2/9th share in all the suit schedule properties described in the schedule and for separate possession and further for mesne profits.

(3.) ON service of summons, defendant No.1 filed written statement inter-alia contending that, the suit is not maintainable as it is under valued. Neither the father of the plaintiff nor defendant Nos.1 to 3 nor the family had any joint family income. There was no family business of contract and his father had not left anything. His father was a carpenter and was not earning any amenable amount and was always put in debt. During the life time of the father, he had undertaken two contract works and suffered substantial loss. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 were minors. They were not earning any income and defendant No.1 performed the marriage of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Father had purchased the suit houses in 1940 for a small consideration. However, he sold the same in 1942. Suit item No.1 was mortgaged as the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 was always put in debt. The mortgage was still subsisting even at the time of death of father. As such, father had not left any income and suit item No.2 was only a vacant plot and remained as a vacant plot. Item No.1 was mortgaged and as such, Veeranna, during his life time, was living in a rented house. Suit item No.3 is not a joint family property. Item Nos.4 and 5 were all self-acquired properties of defendant No.1. Suit item No.6 is also acquired by defendant No.5. Item No.7 was also purchased by defendant No.5. As regards item No.8, there was a suit for specific performance and it was not materialized. Item No.9 was exclusive property of defendant No.1. Item Nos.10 and 11 are not in existence. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have colluded with the plaintiff. When the Urban and Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act came into force, defendant No.3 who was only literate and was knowing English language, under the guise of helping defendant No.1 while filling the declaration before the competent authority, took the signature of defendant No.1 on several papers. Defendant No.1 did not know reading and writing English and reposing confidence on defendant No.3, he had signed some papers. On these allegations and others, defendant No.1 contested the suit.