RACHASETTY Vs. B BASAVASETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below in dismissing the plaintiffs suit for declaration and injunction, the plaintiffs have filed this Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the suit before the Trial Court.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiffs that they and defendants No.1, 2, 6 and 7 constitute a joint family. In respect of the agricultural land, plaintiffs, defendant No.1 and 2 and their father divided the same on 10.04.1964. However, in respect of 09 items of houses and sites, they continued in joint family. Two attempts to divide houses and sites, i.e., one on 09.12.1975 and another in 1977 failed. Thus, the joint family continued. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they came to know that the first defendant has created a fictitious usufructuary mortgage deed and later a Sale Deed dated 12.12.1979 in favour of 3rd and 4th defendants and another Sale Deed dated 24.01.1978. That the properties purchased by the first defendant is not binding on the plaintiffs. The third defendant also claims to have purchased a site from the 7th defendant. 5th defendant claims to have purchased a portion of the property from the 6th defendant. 4th defendant claims to have purchased eastern portion of the property from the second defendant. Therefore, the Sale Deeds effected by the first defendant and others in favour of the alienees is opposed to law. The property is joint family property and no member of the joint family can sell the same. Hence, the instant suit was filed.