LAWS(KAR)-2019-5-42

VASANTHA Vs. R KALIDAS

Decided On May 31, 2019
VASANTHA Appellant
V/S
R KALIDAS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appellant was the defendant in O.S.No.2049/2015, in the Court of learned V. Addl.City Civil Judge, (CCH-13), Bengaluru City, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'), which suit was filed by the present respondent in his capacity as a plaintiff seeking for partition in the suit schedule property.

(2.) The contention of the plaintiff in the trial Court was that the suit schedule property was belonging to his father- M.Rajappa, who was the head of Hindu Undivided joint family and during his life time, he was managing the entire family as a Karta. The plaintiff and the defendant are the children of said Rajappa. The plaintiff is the brother of the defendant. The plaintiff's father had married to one Smt.Lalithamma, who is the natural mother of the parties in the suit. After the death of said Smt.Lalithamma, plaintiff's father i.e., Rajappa, married to one Smt.Indira Bai as his second wife. The site was allotted to their father by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). After the death of said Rajappa, his father, his second wife Smt.Indira Bai was residing in the schedule property. However, she was under the care of the plaintiff. Said Indira Bai also passed away on 17.1.2015. However, during her life time, BBMP had executed an absolute Sale Deed with respect to the said property in favour of said Smt.Indira Bai. Taking the benefit of ill-health of said Smt.Indira Bai, the defendant got a Gift Deed executed by her by practicing fraud and undue influence upon her. As such, in the property in which the plaintiff has got a legitimate share, was deprived by the clandestine act of the defendant. Challenging which and claiming his share, the plaintiff had instituted a suit.

(3.) The defendant in the Court below entered appearance and contested the matter by filing the written statement. In her written statement, she has denied all plaint averments, except the blood relationship with the plaintiff and their parents. She specifically contended that by virtue of the Gift Deed dated 6.6.2013, she has become the absolute owner of the property.