LAWS(KAR)-2007-8-37

M S SUBBUKRISHNA Vs. PARVATHI

Decided On August 31, 2007
M.S SUBBUKRISHNA Appellant
V/S
PARVATHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 01. 12. 2005 in O. S. No. 7/2000 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Srirangapatna, partly decreeing the suit of the appellant/plaintifffor partition.

(2.) THE appellants in R. F. A. No. 411/2006 were the defendants 2 to 9 before the trial Court, whereas the appellant in R. F. A. No. 596/2006 is the first defendant before the trial Court and whereas the first respondent in both the appeals was the plaintiff before the trial court. For convenience, the parties in this judgment are referred to by their status before the trial Court.

(3.) IN filing the plaint, the plaintiff had contended that she and first defendant developed love towards each other and they were living together at one point of time. That subsequently on 06. 01. 1994 the plaintiff and first defendant got married at Sri. Lakshmi Narayana temple, K. R. Pet town. That out of this wedlock between the plaintiff and first defendant, a male child was born on 23. 03. 1994 and the child died immediately after an hour of its birth. That when the male child was in the womb of the plaintiff, the first defendant executed a registered release deed on 19. 01. 1994 in favour of defendants 2 to 9 relinquishing all his rights in the schedule properties in their favour. That the schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of defendants and the deceased son of plaintiff died as stated above. The alleged release deed dated 19. 01. 1994 is hostile to the interest of the minor son of the plaintiff and therefore the same was not binding. The plaintiff's son died on 23. 03. 1994. That the plaintiff succeeded to her undivided share of her son in the schedule properties. That despite repeated requests and demands, the defendants had refused to divide and partition of the schedule properties and having no other alternative, the plaintiff had filed O. S. No. 7/2000 for partition and separate possession of her 5/63rd share in the schedule properties, if necessary by setting aside the release deed dated 19. 01. 1994, and further to render accounts thereon and for such other reliefs.