VENKATA RAO Vs. NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal by the legal representatives of Defendant-4 Sri K.Venkata Rao, is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Second Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, dated 25.8.1987 in O.S.No. 7977 of 1980, whereby the plaintiff's suit for partition and possession of his 1/4th share in the suit schedule immovable properties, was decreed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their status and ranking in the suit. Late Dr. Gundopanth and K.V. Kupparao along with the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 constituted a Joint Hindu Family. The first defendant is the adopted son of Dr. Gundopanth, while the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 are the sons of K.V. Kuppurao. The joint family owned extensive properties in Bangalore City, including the suit schedule property situated in Gundopanth Street, in the heart of the City of Bangalore. Earlier, the plaintiff had filed O.S.No. 70/1958 in the Court of the District Judge, Bangalore, seeking partition of his 1/4th share in the Joint family properties. In the said suit, the present suit properties were shown as Item Nos. 4 to 6 of Schedule 'B'. The said suit came to be disposed of on the basis of a Compromise Petition dated 29.6.1961. Under the said Compromise, the plaintiff having received certain movable assets gave up his rights in respect of certain properties which were exclusively owned by Dr. Gundopanth; and the suit schedule properties, which had been dedicated for charitable purpose by the family were excluded. Subsequently, the said Dr. Gundopanth filed a partition suit in O.S. 47/70 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Bangalore, against Kuppurao and his sons, inter-alia, seeking partition and possession of his share in the properties mentioned in the schedule thereto. Among other properties the instant suit schedule property was also included for partition between the parties thereto. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff was not a party, to that suit allegedly on the ground that he had no subsisting interest whatsoever in any of the properties sought to be partitioned since he had relinquished his right and interest therein under the Compromise Decree in the earlier suit.

(3.) O.S.47/70 also ended in a Compromise on 11.12.1975 whereby Defendants 1 to 3 and 4 to 7 partitioned the instant suit schedule property among themselves. It is the case of the plaintiff that since he was residing at Bombay all along, he was ignorant of these developments and that he came to know about the partition between his father and uncle only when he came to Bangalore to attend to the obsequies of his uncle - Dr. Gundopanth, who died on 17.3.1980. Having thus narrated the entire course of events, right from the filing and disposal of the first partition suit O. S.70/1958 to the date of the instant suit, the plaintiff has asserted that in the circumstances he was wrongfully excluded from sharing the suit property, and that he is entitled to 1/4th share therein, and equitable partition and possession thereof, and for recovery of the mesne profits.