G. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA Vs. T.S. ANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging judgment and decree dtd. 24/6/2010 passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in R.A.no.55/2003 and judgment and decree dtd. 20/3/2007 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Doddaballapura, in O.S.no.163/2003, RSA no.2373/2010 is filed. While RSA no.2374/2010 is filed challenging judgment and decree dtd. 24/6/2010 passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-III, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in RA no.27/2003.

(2.) Brief facts as stated are that appellants in RSA no.2374/2010 were legal representatives ('LRs') of original plaintiff in OS no.212/1994 filed for partition, separate possession and mesne profits insofar as their 1/2 share in items no.1 to 14 ('suit properties' for short) etc. In plaint, it was stated plaintiff and defendants were members of Hindu Undivided Family ('HUF'), wherein propositus was 'Giriyappa'. He had two sons namely Hanumantharayappa - plaintiff and Thimmayya, who was dead and succeeded by defendants no.1 and 2. It was stated, after death of propositus, plaintiff managed joint family. It was stated, plaintiff had three daughters, who were married and happily residing with their families. As he had no son, he lived with defendants. In year 1980, when plaintiff was hopelessly sick, he requested Thimmayya to manage joint family and suit properties, which were ancestral joint family properties, except item no.6, which was purchased by plaintiff as manager of HUF, in name of Smt.Gowramma w/o Thimmayya, as he was advised ceiling on holding of properties would apply if purchased in his name or his brother. It was stated, Thimmayya managed properties till his death, 4 years prior to suit.

(3.) Since, plaintiff was old, left management of entire properties to defendants no.1 and 2, he could not seek partition. It was stated, even Smt.Gowramma was suffering from throat cancer due to which her mental/physical faculties were diminishing. Taking advantage of same, defendants no.1 and 2 got executed Will in their favour from Smt.Gowramma in respect of item no.11 property, by undue influence and fraud. Therefore, same was void/vitiated. Only when defendants began negotiating for sale of item no.11 and under Will plaintiff resisted defendants' title over said property. Though on 7/8/1994 plaintiff demanded partition, defendants refused his share. Hence, suit was filed.