C DDEVIAH AND Vs. KARIGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the adoptive son of one Davegowda who had three younger brothers Halligowda, the natural father of the plaintiff, Annegowda and defendant 1 Karigowda. He died about 10 years before suit. Thereafter the plaintiff and his uncles were living together as member's of a joint Hindu family. The family is said to have owned moveable and immoveable properties described in the schedule to the plaint. Halligowda and Annegowda are said to have gone away from the joint family recently and had no right, title and interest in the suit properties. Defendant 1 had refused to give a share to the plaintiff and the suit has been brought for a declaration that the plaintiff was entitled to 2/5th share in the plaint schedule properties and for partition and possession of the same. Defendant 2 was later on added as a supplemental defendant and she is the adoptive mother of the plaintiff. She has joined the plaintiff in this appeal.

(2.) Defendant 1 pleaded that the plaintiff had been married at the family expense and over Rs. 2000/- had been spent for the same. Thereafter he wanted to take his share and trade and live independently. He, therefore, did not want a share in the immoveable properties and received Rs. 1500/- by way of cash and certain money bonds in March 1942 and went away from the family and thereby became completely divided. Subsequently, the plaintiff's natural father Halligowda and the other brother Annegowda had sold their shares to defendant 1 under registered deeds dated 29-6-1945. They had very shortly after set up the plaintiff to file a suit. The plaintiff was therefore not entitled to any share. The extent of the properties liable to division was also denied. Defendant 1 had also incurred debts amounting to Rs. 3000/- mainly for purchasing the snares of his brothers. Defendant 2 supported the plaintiff and also claimed a share.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge of Mandya, before whom the suit was filed, dismissed it. He held that the partition set up by defendant 1 in the year 1942 at which the plaintiff is said to have taken his share and gone out of the family was true. We have been taken through the entire evidence and we think that the judgment of the Court below cannot be supported.