RANGAHANUMAIAH Vs. DEVARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is filed challenging judgment and decree dtd. 29/9/2006 passed in R.A.No.213/2004 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Tumakuru and confirm the judgment and decree dtd. 13/10/1997 passed in O.S.No.9/1993 on the file of the Munsiff and J.M.F.C., Koratagere.

(2.) The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Trial Court to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs, while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of their 2/3rd share in the suit schedule property is that suit schedule property is the ancestral Hindu Joint Family property i.e., the plaintiffs and second defendant. The plaintiffs and second defendants were in joint possession of the suit schedule property. The family of the plaintiffs and second defendant was in affluent circumstances and there was no need to the family to incur the debts. The first defendant is a stranger to the family and second defendant has no exclusive right and possession over the suit schedule property to sell the same. The first defendant is interfering with the possession of the suit schedule property. When questioned the same, the first defendant denied the title of the plaintiffs over the suit schedule property by saying that he has purchased the suit schedule property from the second defendant. It is contended that the second defendant has no manner of right to alienate the suit schedule property in favour of any person, much less the first defendant. The second defendant at worst, can alienate his share and not the share of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. If any alienation is made by the second defendant in favour of the first defendant, the same is not binding on the plaintiffs. Hence, sought for the relief of partition.