A. GANAPATHI NAYAK Vs. SRI DEVANATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st and 9th defendants are the appellants. This appeal arose out of O.S. 108/78, a suit for partition of plaint C Schedule movable properties and D Schedule immovable properties with reference to good and bad soil granting 15/72 share to the plaintiff. The suit was filed by a minor son of Anand Sridhar Naik, who in turn was the son of Anand Naik. The said Anand Naik had two brothers - Krishnappa Naik and Ramanna Naik - all the three are being sons of one Venkappa Naik. The said Anand Sridhar Naik was made as 4th defendant, the other three defendants being sons of Ramanna Naik, namely, Ganapathy Naik, defendant-1, Ramachandra Naik, defendant-2 and Janardhan Naik, defendant-3. Defendant-5 is the mother of defendants 1 to 3, by name Setamma, and defendants 6 to 9 are the issues of Gananpathy Naik, defendants 10 and 11 are the issues of Ramachandra Naik. Krishnappa Naik, one of the three sons of Venkappa Naik, died leaving widow by name Sundari, and having no issues.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs is that plaintiffs and defendants are members of joint Hindu family and the first defendant was the Yejaman of the family. The family owned extensive properties in various villages. The total net income from these properties was not less than 25 candies of arack, 120 moras of rice, 6000 coconuts and 4 quintals of cashew nuts. The first defendant has been managing the property for three decades. It is alleged that he has been secreting large income for his own advantage and benefits. The plaintiff claims his father as simpleton. It was further alleged that recently in 1978, a document styled as partition has been brought about and the execution thereof was denied. There has been no equitable partition and fictitious debts are stated with a view to justify grant of unequal shares. Claiming that the document is neither legal nor justifiable nor proper, and seeking cancellation thereof, the suit came to be filed.

(3.) ALONG with this suit, the other suit OS 222/83 was tried as a suit filed by the creditor of the family. From the pleadings the following issues are framed :