N.L. MANJUNATHA Vs. B.L. ANANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed for praying to set aside the judgment & decree passed in RA No.11/2008 dtd. 31/10/2008 by learned Civil Judge, (Sr.dn.) and JMFC, Nagamangala and judgment and decree dtd. 12/12/2007 passed in OS.No.153/1999 by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Nagamangala and prayed to dismiss the appeal.

(2.) The parties will be referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

(3.) The appellants were defendants No.1 and 3 and respondent No.1 was plaintiff in- O.S.No.153/1999. The defendant No.2-N.L.Srikanta son of Late N.H. Lingappa has not been arraigned as party in this second appeal. He was arraigned as respondent No.1 in the first appeal. Plaintiff had filed a suit for the relief of partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in all the suit schedule properties by meets and bounds and mesne profits. The plaintiff and defendants No.1 & 2 are brothers and their father died about six years prior to filing of suit leaving behind plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 3 as legal heirs to succeed his properties. The mother of the plaintiff and defendants also died five years prior to the filing of the suit. It is stated that during the life time of father they were living together in joint family and after death of parents, defendant No.1 continued to be the manager of the joint family. It is stated that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants and they fallen to the share of father of plaintiff and defendants under partition and revenue records came to be changed in the name of defendant No.1 without consent of the plaintiff. It is stated that defendant No.1 was mismanaging the joint family properties and therefore, plaintiff requested to allot his share. The defendants did not give share to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff convened the panchayat but nothing happened in the said panchayat. The plaintiff got issued notice to the defendants dtd. 28/8/1999, seeking his share as the defendants did not give share. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition.