SUSHEELAMMA Vs. K RAMASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by defendants -1 to 3 of O.S.No.422/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Harihar, assailing the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.56/2003 on the file of the Fast Track Sessions Judge, Davangere vide judgment dated 15th March 2006, in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Harihar, in O.S.No.422/2002 dated 21.8.2003.

(2.) FACTS in brief are as under: - First respondent filed the suit for partition and also declaration in respect of the suit item Nos.1 and 2. His case was, one Srinivasa Bhat was the father of the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 and late Shankara Rao. Defendants 2 and 3 are the children and defendant No.1 is the wife of said late Shankara Rao. The plaintiff and defendants constitute Hindu Joint Family. Late Shankar Rao being the elder son in the family, after the death of his father / Seetharam Bhat was managing the family affairs. Suit properties were acquired by late Seetharam Bhat from his forefathers and the entries in the panchayat records stood in his name. On his death, the entries were changed to the name of Shankara Rao. After the death of Shankara Rao, the defendants got the Khata changed over to the name of first defendant. Still the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 are the joint owners and in possession of the suit properties. Hence, plaintiff has 1/6th share in the properties. When this plaintiff and brothers - defendants 4 to 7 demanded their legitimate share in the properties, defendants 1 to 3 did not show any interest. Hence, he issued a legal notice on 31.10.1998 and the first defendant gave evasive reply on 18.12.1998. After issuing legal notice, plaintiff came to know that defendants 1 to 3 sold the properties to defendant No.8 on 12.10.1989 under a registered sale deed but the same is not binding on the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7. The property is not sold for any legal necessity and the same is without the consent of the cosharers. The eighth defendant purchased the property knowing fully well that the suit properties are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7. Hence, the prayer for partition and separate possession for 1/6th share by metes and bounds and cancellation of the sale deed dated 19.10.1998 etc.

(3.) THE suit was contested. Defendant Nos.4, 5 and 7 filed written statements seeking their 1/6th share each in the suit properties.