VENKATASWAMY Vs. VENKATARAMAPPA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the first defendant's regular first appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court partly decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs.

(2.) For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred in the original suit.

(3.) The prepositor Chikkavenkataramanna had two children by name Hanumappa and Byamma who are not alive. Byamma was married to one Munivenkatappa who is also no more. Hanumappa had married to one Akkayamma who gave birth to defendant Nos. 1 and 2. After the death of Akkayamma, Hanumappa married one Venkatamma who gave birth to plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 3 to 5. Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 are living in their husband's house after their marriage. During the life time of Hanumappa, the plaintiffs and defendants were living together as members of the Hindu Undivided Joint family by enjoying the suit schedule ancestral joint family properties. Hanumappa was managing the affairs of the joint family during his life time. After his death, all of them are continuing to be the members of the joint family by enjoying the suit schedule properties jointly. After the death of Hanumappa, defendant No. 1 became kartha of the joint family and running the joint family affairs including the financial matters. Plaintiff No. 1 is a dumb who is concentrating with joint family agriculture. Plaintiff No. 2 is working in Karnataka Health department who is providing financial assistance for improvement of the joint family agriculture. Plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are visiting their village and participating in the agricultural operations during their holidays. Plaintiff No. 3 is working as a Conductor in the KSRTC for the past four years. He has devoted his time for improving the agriculture and is also providing financial assistance for defendant No. 1 for improving the joint family agriculture. The joint family owns fertile, dry garden and wet lands having considerable income. They used to grow vegetables, sericulture crop and they used to produce silk cocoons by rearing worms. There is a bore well and they are using the bore well water for growing the crops. Plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 intended to start poultry farm and out of the savings of the joint family along with the financial assistance provided by plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3, poultry farm sheds were constructed in Sy. No. 104 property. There are four poultry farm sheds constructed. The poultry farm sheds are leased in favour of defendant No. 6 who is paying lease amount more than Rs. 50,000/- per month to defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 is not showing the accounts. Defendant No. 1 and his children have borrowed loan from SBI, Kolar branch for establishing poultry farm on the security of the suit schedule properties. The said loan transactions were not in their knowledge and behind their back the above said loan was borrowed. Defendant No. 1 has not taken their consent for mortgaging the suit schedule properties to the bank. Defendant No. 1 has not utilised the said loan amount for the purpose it was borrowed. There was no necessity to borrow loan for establishing poultry farm since the poultry farm was already established out of the joint family funds. They are not liable to discharge the loan amount since the defendant No. 1 has utilised the same for personal expenditure of himself and his children. Defendant No. 1 has illegally shown different survey numbers to the bank to construct sheds. He has cheated the bank authorities and thereby he has not utilised the loan amount. They are having considerable income from the agricultural lands and also from the poultry farm. Defendant No. 1 has utilised the said income for the personal expenditure of himself and his children. Defendant No. 1 is misusing the lease amount received from defendant No. 6. Therefore, when defendant No. 1 refused to give share of the plaintiffs, they are constrained to file a suit for partition and separate possession in the suit schedule properties.