P N ETHIRAJULU Vs. B GOVINDAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 to 4 in O.S.2222/2007 on the file of XXXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, have preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.2.2012 in the said suit. The trial Judge decreed the suit for partition holding that plaintiffs 2 and 3 were each entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property. Making a reference to the parties as they stand in the suit, the facts of the case briefly stated are as follows : -

(2.) Plaintiff No.1 is the mother of plaintiffs 2, 3 and defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 is the widow of one P.N. Babu who is the second son of the first plaintiff. The suit for partition was brought in respect of property bearing No. 11 situated at 'B' Block, MI No. 19/3, old Sy. Nos. 242 and 281, new Sy. No. 93 of Kempapura Agrahara, Cholurpalya, behind Prasanna Talkies, Manjunatha Nagar, Bengaluru-23. Plaintiffs stated that the husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2, 3 and defendant No.1 Sri P.V.Narayanaswamy Naidu was an ex-service man and he possessed immovable properties at Tamilnadu. The suit property was purchased by selling one of the properties at Tamilnadu. Though the said property was purchased in the names of the first defendant and the husband of second defendant, the source for the purchase of the suit property was proceeds of sale of a property at Tamilnadu. The plaintiffs claimed that the suit property is a joint family property. Since they learnt that the first defendant and second defendant were trying to alienate the suit property to third parties even though they did not have exclusive right to sell the same, they brought the suit for partition. Initially, in the plaint, the plaintiffs claimed allotment of 1/5th share as at that time, the first plaintiff was alive.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 filed written statement admitting the relationship between them and the plaintiffs, but took up a specific contention that suit property was not the joint family property and it was not purchased from the nucleus of the joint family. The first defendant and the husband of the second defendant were working at Bengaluru and they had independent source. Therefore, they purchased the suit property from their self earnings. They also stated that the consideration received by sale of a property at Tamilnadu was utilized for the marriage of plaintiff No.3. For these reasons, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim partition.