ARUNA Vs. V. MUNIYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 24/10/2016, passed in R.A.No.74/2011, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.223/2005 before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties and the same belongs to their father Venkatappa and he was the manager and kartha of the family and in some of the suit schedule properties, Venkatappa cultivated the lands as a tenant. Accordingly, Venkatappa filed Form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Kolar in LRF No.538/1974-75. After enquiry, the said land was granted by the Land Tribunal, Kolar in favour of the defendant, who is the elder member of the family. After the death of Venkatappa, some of the properties acquired out of joint family funds, the same was registered in the name of the defendant, who is the manager of the family. Due to woman folk, plaintiff No.1 and defendant are having separate messes for the past ten years and the suit schedule properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the defendant and there is no division or demarcation between them. It is contended that in respect of some of the properties, khatha stand in the name of the defendant and plaintiff No.1 and in respect of some of the properties, khatha stand in the name of Venkatappa and some of the properties khatha remained in the name of vendors of Venkatappa. Plaintiff No.1 has been suffering from paralysis for past two years and not in a position to speak and walk freely. For that reason, plaintiff Nos.2 to 5 joined with plaintiff No.1 to file this suit. The plaintiffs and the defendant are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties and the defendant was managing the family affairs for all these years. The defendant's attitude changed and he was misuing the funds of the joint family properties with the instigation of wife and children and the same has been questioned by the plaintiffs, hence their relationship was strained. The panchayat was convened for partition for granting half share and the same ended in vain. Lastly in the month of July 2005, the plaintiffs demanded their share with the defendant, but the defendant refused and hence without any other option, the plaintiffs filed the suit.