K. S. RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. CHINNAPPAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 3/7/2017 passed in R.A.No.125/2015 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, sitting at KGF.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that one Sarjapurada Muniswamy was the propositus of the family. He died leaving behind his six sons. The sons of Sarjapurada Muniswamy also died leaving behind their sons who are plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 and defendant No.1. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the members of the joint family. The said joint family possessed the suit schedule properties. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 are employed in different places hence, they could not manage the properties by themselves and therefore defendant No.1 was looking after the properties on their behalf. Subsequently, the plaintiffs came to know that defendant No.1 has not managed the properties well and shifted to Bangalore to do his business. When the plaintiffs questioned defendant No.1 how he can manage the properties without being in the village, defendant No.1 did not give proper reply. The plaintiffs came to know that defendant No.2 has made some documents in her favour. As such, she has been proclaiming that she is the owner of the suit schedule properties and she can sell away the same. The alleged documents came into existence without the knowledge of the plaintiffs in the month of November 2006. Hence, the plaintiffs demanded for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule properties. In this regard, panchayat was also convened in the month of December 2006. However, defendant No.1 evaded to attend the panchayath. It is further contended that defendant No.2 along with her daughter and grandchildren who are defendant Nos.3 to 6 have sold the suit item Nos.1 to 3 in 'A' schedule property and item No.2 in 'B' schedule property and 'C' schedule property under sale deed dtd. 21/1/2008 to defendant Nos.7 to 10 during the pendency of the suit. Hence, the alleged sale is hit by Sec. 52 of T.P. Act. Defendant Nos.7 to 10 are not the bonafide purchasers for value without notice. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. Hence, filed the suit.