SANNAHAIDEGOWDA Vs. ETHEGOWDA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants 1 to 3 and 6 are the sons and defendants 4 and 7 are the daughters of Doddathammegowda @ Kalegowda and 5th defendant Puttaveeramma. Their father died in the year 1979 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants as his legal heirs. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties. After his death, the first defendant has looked after the entire family and during his lifetime, he performed the marriage of the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 to 4, 6 and 7. Defendants 4 & 7 are residing separately at their husband's house. Plaintiff and defendants 1 to 4 and 6 are cultivating the lands on the directions of the first defendant. The plaintiff and the defendants acquired B' schedule properties in the name of defendants 1, 2, 3 and 6 from joint family funds. 'A' schedule properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. On the instructions of the first defendant, defendants 1 to 3 and 6 by colluding with the revenue authorities manipulated the documents in their favour and in their wives' names behind the back of the plaintiff When the plaintiff demanded a partition of the properties, they turned hostile and denied the partition. Even though a police complaint was lodged, nothing yielded from it. Hence, plaintiff has filed this suit for partition and separate possession of 1/5th share of the suit schedule properties.

(2.) On service of suit summons, defendants 1 & 3 appeared through their counsel and filed the written statement. 6th defendant filed a separate written statement. Defendants 2, 4 and 7 were placed ex -parte. The suit against 5th defendant was dismissed having abated. Defendants 1, 3 and 6 have admitted the relationship as well as the death of the father in the year 1979. Except the admitted relationship and the death, all other allegations have been denied. They contended that their father had 5 sons and 2 daughters and that during his lifetime he had partitioned all his properties in the name of his sons and executed the unregistered panchayath vibhaga patra in the year 1969 in the presence of panchayathdars, after which the plaintiff and the defendants are living separately with the respective shares. The plaintiff was in possession of 1 acre of land in Sy. No. 38, 1 acre 1 gunta of land in Sy. No. 125 and one ankana house at Hallada Manuganahalli Village. After partition, the plaintiff sold 1 acre of land in Sy. No. 38 and the house and purchased 1 acre of land in Kanmuddanahally Village and one house property. He also sold 1 acre 1 gunta in Sy. No. 125 during 1982. The defendants in their written statement have contended that the movable properties of the plaint schedule are not in existence. The properties standing in the name of the defendants 1 to 3 are their ancestral properties and the properties standing in the names of their wives are self acquired properties and that the same were not ancestral and joint family properties. 6th defendant has further contended that Sy. No. 31/13B measuring 1 acre of Muddapura Village and land bearing Sy. No. 85/PS measuring 4 acres 10 guntas of Dharmapura Village, was acquired by him through Darakasth in the year 1980 -81 and 1993 -94, respectively. Hence, they are self acquired properties. The plaintiff has given land bearing Sy. No. 38 measuring 4 acres to his sister.

(3.) On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: