KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. DEEPAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 16-6-2000 passed in O. S. No. 62 of 1996. The defendant 1 who is aggrieved by the allotment of share made by the impugned judgment is assailing the same urging several grounds.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to by their ranks obtained in the Court below. Few facts, which are essential for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be set out as under: the plaintiffs who are the wife and two minor children of defendant 1 filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their l/8th share in 'b' schedule property and 3/4th share in 'c' schedule property. Though the other defendants were arrayed as parties in the suit, the grievance with regard to other defendants was limited only in respect of 'b' schedule property. The Court below has decreed the suit allotting 3/4th share from out of 13/120th share insofar as 'b' schedule property is concerned. There is no grievance as regards this portion of the judgment. Therefore, it is unnecessary to deal with the allotment of share made in respect of 'b' schedule property. What essentially falls for consideration in this appeal is the grievance of the defendant 1 with regard to the allotment of share made in respect of 'c' schedule property.

(3.) PLAINTIFF 3 is the wife of defendant 1. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the minor children born out of the wedlock between defendant 1 and plaintiff 3. It is contended by plaintiff 3 for herself and on behalf of her minor sons that defendant 1 completely deserted them and was taken to bad habits; that it was plaintiff 3 who was taking care of the minor children. Defendant 1 by misusing the properties and assets of the family was causing loss to the interest of the minors; that there was a family Kirana business carried on at Bagalkot and the defendants had contributed to the said business out of which the 'b' schedule property was acquired. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that when the plaintiffs and defendant 1 started living separately at Guledgud, it was the plaintiff 3 being a Government servant working in Health department getting a salary of Rs. 3,000/- p. m. who contributed to the family consisting of herself, her husband and the minor children for the education of the children and for starting a business of her husband who was an unemployed person. It is her further case that she has raised loan and advanced funds to defendant 1 to start cycle business in the name of 'deepak Cycle Stores'. She, however, asserts that she has taken loan on her salary to start another business in the name of 'tilak enterprises' for selling of furniture and other articles.