SHIVVARUDRAIAH Vs. K N MARUTHI PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises from the judgment and decree dated 28-2-1992 delivered by Sri a. Krishnappa, learned additional civil judge, tumkur, in regular appeal No. 56 of 1987 (Shivarudraiah v K. N. Maruthi Prakash and others) dismissing the defendant's first appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 30-6-1987 delivered by the learned principal munsiff, tumkur (i. e. Sri k. Rachaiah) decreeing the plaintiffs' suit for declaration that the suit schedule properties being joint family properties, alienation made by the defendant 2 on 14-8-1974 in respect thereof, is not binding on the undivided interest of the plaintiffs and for possession vide original suit No. 94 of 1982.

(2.) THE plaintiffs' case is that all the suit schedule properties have been ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the 2nd defendant. That 2nd defendant-respondent has sold the schedule properties on 14-8-1974 in favour of the original 1st defendant, now whose heir is the appellant in this appeal, without any legal necessity or pressure. So the said alienation is not binding on the undivided interest and share of the plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff claimed the reliefs mentioned earlier. That the 1st defendant contested the suit and filed a written statement and asserted that the sale of the suit properties in his favour was for legal necessity and for the benefit of the family. The defendant-respondent alleged that the sale of the suit properties in favour of the original defendant 1 has been for performing the marriage of the youngest daughter of the plaintiff.

(3.) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed the issues as under: (a) whether the suit schedule properties were sold for legal necessity? (b) whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration declaring that the alienation dated 14-8-1974 is not binding on the undivided interest of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties? (c) whether the plaintiff are entitled for possession? (d) whether the plaintiffs are entitled for mesne profits, if so, at what rate? (e) is the suit not maintainable as stated in para 4 of the written statement? (f) to what Order and decree?