PARVATHAMMA Vs. A P MUNIYAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by the defendant to challenge the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 5014/86 on the file of the Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH No.5), Bangalore city, whereby the said City Civil Judge decreed the suit of the respondents for partition and separate possession and further for mesne profits.

(2.) When the appeal was pending before this Court, one Mahendramma alias Indira, the daughter of the appellant herein had also resorted to an I.A. under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of CPC for a direction to respondents to implead her as a party to the suit. The said I.A. is numbered as I.A. No. VI in the appeal. Hence, I heard the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri.S.K. V. Chalapaty, Sri. V. Tarakaram,the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Impleading Applicant, the above said Mahendramma alias Indira and Sri. P.D. Surana, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) The case in brief is as follows :That the respondents had resorted to the suit in O.S. No. 5014/86 on the file of the Addl. City Civil Judge (CCH No. 15), Bangalore City (hereinafter referred to for convenience as the 'Court below') for partition and separate possession of house property bearing Khaneshmari No.471 and 472 of Kengeri village within the limits of Kengeri Town Municipality, Bangalore south taluk. That the respondents No. 1 and 2 are the sons of one Appajappa also known as Muniswamappa and the respondents No.3 and 4 and the appellant herein are the daughters of the said Appajappa alias Muniswamappa. The case of the respondents as set out in their plaint is that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Appajappa. That during his life time, he had effected a partition of the joint family properties including the suit schedule property amongst his sons, the respondents No. 1 and 2 and there came to be registered a partition deed dated 3-8-1962, Ex. P.1. That the suit schedule property thus fell to the share of Appajappa under the above said partition deed and subsequently he died in the year 1978 leaving behind the appellant and the respondents and his legal representatives to succeed to the same in equal shares. The respondents therefore claimed partition and separate possession of their share 1/5th share each in the suit property in view of the fact that his wife by name Venkatamma,(the,mother of the appellant and the respondents) also died subsequent to the death of Appajappa. They further claimed that the appellant without consent of the respondents demolished the entire Mangalore tiled roof building originally existing in the suit property during the month of Nov. 1986 and she tried to put up a new structure thereon. Therefore, the suit was filed.