G RANGAIAH Vs. GOVINDAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal is by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 384 of 1993, a suit for partition and separate possession of his one-fourth share in the suit schedule properties. Suit was on the premise that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 constituted a joint family with defendant No. 1 being father of the plaintiff, defendants 2 and 3 being the stepbrothers of the plaintiff and the defendant no. 4 being step mother of the plaintiff, which possessed all the properties described in the schedule to the plaint and as the defendant no. 1 was entering into many transactions with defendants 5 and 6 and even within the defendants 1 to 4 which is detriment to the interest of the plaintiff and as the first defendant was denying the due share of the plaintiff, it had become necessary to sue for the share of the plaintiff. This suit though contested by the defendants had been decreed by the trial Court, but the Judgment and decree having been set aside by the lower Appellate court in the appeal filed by the defendants 1 to 4 and the suit having been dismissed by the lower appellate Court, this second appeal by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE defendants had pleaded that the plaintiff was not a member of the family of defendants 1 to 4 any more; that there was an oral partition in the year 1975 as amongst the plaintiff, first defendant and another brother of the first defendant, namely, one ranganathappa (not a party to the suit); that the plaintiff had been given one-third share of the properties even at that time; that such division and partition had been later reduced to writing in terms of a document dated 15-7-1987 marked as Exhibit D1; that the plaintiff has been, ever since enjoying his share of the properties separately; that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the properties that were in the possession and enjoyment of the defendants and even admittedly several of the properties having been acquired by the defendants subsequent to the division in the year 1975, the plaintiff cannot lay any claim for sharing such properties and therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) THE defendants though admitted the relationship of the parties and also that the propositus one Thippajappa had left behind some properties, pleaded that he had three sons doddarangappa, Sannaranagajja and seetharamajja; that the first defendant was son of Sannarangajja: that he had brothers by name Ranganathappa and Govindappa; that some of the properties had been shared equally amongst the brothers of Govindappa and at that time the plaintiff had also been given a share i. e. , one-third share in the share of his father in an oral partition that took place in the year 1975; that the plaintiff had also been given a share in the house that had fallen to the share of the first defendant in the family partition; that on and after the year 1975, there was severance of status in the family and the parties were living separately and enjoying the properties separately; that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit and therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.