RENUKAIAH Vs. KALYAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Regular Second Appeals are filed by the legal representatives of defendant No.2 and defendants 3 and 4 against the judgment and decree dated 6.10.2015 made in R.A.No.74/2009 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gubbi, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 9.4.2009 in O.S.No.150/2000 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Gubbi, dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession.

(2.) The first respondent in both these appeals, Sri Kalyan Kumar who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.150/2000 filed a suit for partition and separate possession and for permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule properties against the defendants contending that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are brothers and they are sons of one Gangadharaiah. The suit properties are ancestral joint family properties of plaintiff and 1st defendant. During the life time of plaintiff's father Gangadharaiah, the 1st defendant and plaintiff's father-Gangadhariaah colluded with each other, alienated the suit properties in favour of defendants 2 to 4, depriving the legitimate share of the plaintiff over the suit properties. After alienating such properties, the plaintiff's father-Gangadharaiah died leaving behind plaintiff and 1st defendant as legal representatives. Further, after purchase of suit properties, the defendants 2 to 4 further attempting to alienate the suit properties and tried to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for partition and separate possession of his ½ share in the suit properties.

(3.) 1St defendant though appeared, has not filed any written statement. The defendants 2 to 4 who are the subsequent purchasers have filed written statement and admitted that the plaintiff and 1st defendant are brothers and they are the sons of Gangadharaiah and further admitted that the said Gangadharaiah died leaving behind plaintiff and 1st defendant as legal representatives and further contended that, suit properties are not ancestral joint family properties of plaintiff and 1st defendant and they are not in possession of the suit properties. It is the specific contention of the defendants 2 to 4 that suit item No.1 is a self acquired property of Gangadharaiah who is the father of plaintiff and 1st defendant and denied the other averments. The 2nd defendant contended that plaintiff's father Gangadharaiah alienated item No.2 property in his favour for valuable consideration for a legal necessity under registered sale deed dated 7.12.1989 and from the date of such purchase, the 2nd defendant is in possession of suit item No.2 property and cultivating the same and revenue records of the said property is standing in the name of 2nd defendant. The defendants 3 and 4 contended that, the plaintiff's father Gangadharaiah has alienated items No.1 and 3 of the suit schedule properties in their favour for his legal necessity under registered sale deeds dated 12.3.1991 and 5.5.1994 and they are in possession and enjoyment of the said properties etc. and prays for dismissal of the suit.