M. MUNIYAPPA AND ORS. Vs. RAVINDRA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are preferred by defendant No. 5 and the plaintiff, respectively, challenging the same judgment - though on different aspects. The appeals are considered and disposed of by this common judgment, having regard to the facts and circumstances.

(2.) THE parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court, for the sake of convenience.

(3.) IT was the case of the plaintiff that he was the grandson of one Ramaiah Reddy. The first defendant was said to be the father of the plaintiff Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 were the plaintiffs paternal uncles. It was claimed that the plaintiff and his father were members of a Hindu joint family and that items 1 and 2 described in the schedule to the suit were agricultural lands bearing survey No. 43/1 of Bommanahalli, Venkoba Rao Khan, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. It was claimed that an extent of 5 acres and 23 guntas of land of the said Sy. No. were ancestral properties of the plaintiff This land had originally fallen to the share of the plaintiffs grandfather, at a partition as on 18.10.1957, as between Ramaiah Reddy, the plaintiffs grandfather, and his brothers -Venkatappa Reddy and Annaiah Reddy. It transpires that there was a further partition as between the grandfather of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 as on 12.1.1981. At the said partition, it was claimed that the properties described in the schedule to the suit, had fallen to the share of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1, jointly and was hence claiming a half share thereto. It was the plaintiffs further case that defendants 1 to 4 seemed to have entered into an agreement to sell item No. 1 of the suit schedule property, along with another extent of one acre of land that had fallen to the share of defendants 2 to 4, to defendants No. 6 to 9. Those defendants in turn were believed to have entered into further agreements to sell portions of the said lands, formed into house sites to defendants 10 to 40. According to the plaintiff, the formation of the house sites was not by virtue of conversion of the land user or on sanction of any layout plan. The plaintiff was opposed to the proposed sale of the land and also was not agreeable to the dubious transaction. It was claimed that the plaintiff learnt about the transaction three months prior to the filing of the suit. On questioning the first defendant, it was said that he had been deceived by defendants 6 to 9 into entering into such an agreement, according to the plaintiff. It was stated that at the partition between defendant Nos. 1 to 4, each of them representing their respective branch had divided the land bearing survey No. 43/1 into four shares, each branch being allotted one acre of land. The share allotted to the branch comprising the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 together was shown in a sketch appended to the plaint as ABCD. It was further stated that the share allotted to the plaintiff and the first defendant was shown in the said sketch as WXYZ. In the area shown as WXYZ, it was claimed that the fifth defendant had encroached a portion of the same by moving a fence forming the boundary of his property, which was on the eastern side of the plaintiffs property. Hence the fifth defendant is said to be made a party to the suit. It is in the above background that the suit was filed seeking the following reliefs :