SRI GOPAL RAO Vs. SATHYENDRA RAO BONDADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 17.06.2004 passed by the Principal Civil Senior Judge, Davanagere in O.S.No.385/2000. By the impugned judgment and decree the trial Court has decreed the suit for partition and separate possession of 1/4 share of plaintiff No. 1 in the suit property and rejected the claim for mesne profits.

(2.) The subject matter of the suit is the site measuring 30'x 100' with a RCC building constructed thereon bearing door No.383 situated in 4th Main, 8th Cross, P.J. Extenstion, Davanagere. The appellant is the second defendant in the suit. Sathyendra Rao Bondade and his son Sri S.Vijaya Bondade (respondent Nos.1 and 2) filed O.S. No. 385/2000 against the appellant Gopala Rao, respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Sri B.Balvanta Rao and Sri Nagaraj Rao Bondade. Sri B. Balvanta Rao and Sri Nagaraj Rao Bondade are defendant Nos. 1 and 3 respectively before the trial Court. Pending the suit, first plaintiff Sathyendra Rao Bondade died and his daughters respondents No. 1(b) and 1(c) were brought on record as his legal representatives along with the second plaintiff.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: Plaintiff No. 1, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 along with their father Bondade Khandappa constituted the joint hindu family. In course of time Plaintiff No. 1 and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 went on separating from the family executing release deeds in favour of their father. Their father Bondade Khandappa retained the suit property as his share in the family properties. He died on 10.04.1974 intestate. After his death Smt.Krishna Bai, mother of plaintiff No. 1 and defendants continued to reside in the said property. She also died intestate in June 1994. Plaintiff No. 1 and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 being the heirs of Bondade Khandappa are entitled to equal 1/4 share in the suit property. Since defendant No.2 had sold the house allotted to his share, on the death of Smt. Krishna Bai, he was allowed to occupy the said house and reside their. Despite several requests of the plaintiffs, defendants failed to effect the partition and hand over the possession of the 1st plaintiffs' share in the suit property.