T S SUBBARAJU Vs. T A SHIVARAMA SETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred this appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, calling in question the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 8-11-2001 dismissing O. S. No. 3618 of 1985 on the file of the Court of XXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore (for short Civil Court ).

(2.) FACTS in brief, as noticed, for decision-making in this appeal are : the relationship of the parties are not in dispute. The appellant-plaintiff is the second son of the 1st defendant, father and 2nd defendant, mother, while the 3rd defendant is the elder brother and 4th defendant is the younger. Defendant No. 5 is the purchaser of Item No. 1 of plaint Schedule 'a' immovable properties conveyed by the 1st defendant. The appellant and respondents 1 to 4 constitute a joint Hindu Undivided family.

(3.) THE appellant instituted O. S. No. 3618 of 1985 for partition and separate possession of his th share in plaint 'a' and 'b' schedule properties and amongst other reliefs, the relief of declaration that the Sale deed dated 24-7-1985 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of 5th defendant, as not binding on him. The case put forth by the appellant is that his paternal grandfather adinarayana Setty by name, had ancestral properties and was a businessman. That the said late Adinarayana Setty along with his sons of which, eldest son is the 1st defendant, jointly conveyed by way of sale of the ancestral properties at Doddahalahalli village, separated themselves from the joint family and shifted to Bangalore, for the purpose of business. The appellant specifically avers that his grandfather and his father, the 1st defendant, started business, jointly, at Riseldar street utilising proceeds of the sale of the ancestral properties, constituting the joint family nucleus as and by way of capital for the said business. It is also averred that the said business is continued by the joint family and out of labour and toil of the members of the joint family, they acquired several movable and immovable properties, more fully described in plaint 'a' and 'b' Schedule. The 2nd defendant being a name lender, the properties at items 2 and 3 of Schedule 'a' were acquired in her name. It is the further case of the appellant that from his childhood, he contributed to the joint family by assisting in the business, and that, after his marriage due to differences among womenfolk, he had to make a separate living in the suit Item No. 1 of plaint schedule 'a' properties. It is thic immovable property which is sold to the 5th defendant by the 1st defendant. The appellant also alleges that the Fair Price Shop run by the 1st defendant and other Provision Stores run by 3rd respondent are joint family business. With regard to the family jewels, it is alleged that the defendants have secreted the same, to defeat the legitimate claims of the plaintiff.