LAKSHMI NARAYANA, Vs. MUNITHAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for appellant Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 3.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of her 1/4th share in all the suit schedule properties, it is contended that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Munishamappa and Narayanappa. Munishamappa, the father of the plaintiff, did not have any male children, but only having four daughters. The defendant No.6, Venkatarayappa, was the husband of late Narayanamma, who was the eldest daughter of Munishamappa. He was managing the affairs of the entire family. Munishamappa had a wife by name Channamma, who died about 25 years ago. The said Munishamappa also passed away about 10 years ago. The plaintiff was married to Dyavappa about 20 years ago. During the lifetime of Munishamappa, on his behalf, defendant No.6 was assisting and managing the affairs of said Munishamappa. The said Munishamappa did not have any sound mind and health. After the death of Munishamappa, the plaintiff asked for her share in the suit schedule properties. The defendant Nos.3 to 6 made her believe that the schedule properties are being improved on behalf of all the members of the family of deceased Munishamappa and when a higher value is expected, the entire suit schedule properties would be sold, and the plaintiff would be given her legitimate share. It is contended that none of the defendants had any independent source of income other than the income acquired from the nucleus of property of late Munishamappa. During the month of August 1994, the plaintiff approached the defendants claiming her 1/4th share. But the defendants denied her share in the properties. Hence, the suit is filed for the relief of partition.

(3.) It is also the contention of the plaintiff that the defendants stated that all the suit schedule properties have become their absolute properties, since late Munishamappa had executed deeds in their favour. Without prejudice to the plaintiff claiming 1/4th share in the schedule properties, the plaintiff contend that Munishamappa did not have any necessity to sell any of the properties during his lifetime. Even if he had sold or alienated, the defendants belonging to joint family of Munishamappa, did not have any independent source of income to purchase the same and their purchase would in turn become joint family property.