MUNIGURAPPA Vs. DODDATHIMMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal presents an entangled and an interesting set of facts, which ultimately discloses absence of cause of action for the plaintiff to maintain the suit. The first defendant Doddathimmaiah is the father of the plaintiff and the second defendant, A partition takes place between the father and the sons, a share is allotted to the first defendant only with a right to enjoy the property during his lifetime and after his demise, the property is to devolve upon the plaintiff and the second defendant equally. The partition is an unregistered partition at Ex. P. 6. Nonetheless, the parties are divided and enjoying the properties separately. The stipulation in the unregistered partition that the father should take only a limited interest in the property during his lifetime for maintenance and the said estate to devolve upon his sons after his death amounts to partial relinquishment of his full ownership rights in the property. If the partition deed is registered, the stipulation is validly enforceable and it amounts to valid transfer binding the parties. If the partition deed is unregistered, the stipulation has no legal consequence and cannot affect the full ownership rights of the father.

(2.) SOME time after the partition the first defendant executed a Will in favour of the second defendant bequeathing his share to the secpnd defendant. The first defendant is still alive, at mutual request of defendants 1 and 2; the revenue authorities have changed the khatha in favour of the second defendant. The plaintiff aggrieved by the action filed the suit claiming that under the terms of partition he is entitled to share in the suit property after the demise of his father. The stipulation relied on by the plaintiff for vindicating his rights is a part of an unregistered partition deed. Therefore, the stipulation is unenforceable and cannot affect the full ownership rights of the father.

(3.) A Will is executed by the first defendant and he is still alive. Will would not come into effect until his death. The action of revenue authorities to change the khatha of the property at the instance of the first defendant in favour of the second defendant does not offend the legal rights of the plaintiff in any manner as he has no interest in the property and he has no cause of action to maintain the suit. The Trial Court unnecessarily allowed the parties to adduce evidence and ultimately dismissed the suit of the plaintiff for different reasons. I find the dismissal of the suit is justified not for the reasons stated by the Trial court, but for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.