D.M.KRISHNA Vs. N.CHANDRASHEKARIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is a plaintiff's appeal. The present plaintiff had instituted a suit against the present respondent arraying him as defendant in O.S. No.4752/1993 in the Court of learned XXII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-7) (for brevity, 'Trial Court') for a relief of mandatory injunction.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the Trial Court was that on 20.05.1976, a partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant was formed. As differences arose between them, the firm was dissolved during the year 1977. In that regard a deed of dissolution also came to be executed. The plaintiff's mother was one Smt. Ramakka who had a golden Kaasinasara (a golden necklace) and it was handed over in trust to the defendant. The defendant was the owner of a site bearing document No.2324/75-76 described in the schedule to the plaint. In respect of these transactions as well as the disputes with regard to the partnership firm, a panchayat was convened, in the presence of panchayatdars namely Sri Krishnappa, Sri C.S.Naidu, Sri Deenadayal Naidu and one Sri Jayaram, Patel of Binnamangala. The matter was settled in panchayat on 16.10.1979 between the plaintiff and the defendant. It was settled therein that the plaintiff should pay a sum of Rs.7,000/- to the defendant and that the defendant in turn should handover the golden Kaasinasara to the plaintiff and should execute a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and should pay the amounts due to Sudarshan Chit Funds. In view of this settlement before the panchayat, the plaintiff approached the defendant with requisite money and requested him to handover the golden Kaasinasara and to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit schedule property. However, the defendant went on postponing the same on one or other pretext and ultimately the defendant told the plaintiff that he had pledged the Kaasinasara with Sri Pathi and later informed the plaintiff that said Kaasinasara was with one Sri Anand. The defendant wrote a letter to Anand to deliver the Kaasinasara to the plaintiff but said Anand informed the plaintiff that he was not in custody of the said Kaasinasara and the same is with the defendant. However, the defendant postponed returning of Kaasinasara and also to execute registered sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and also to pay the amount due to Sudarshan Chit Funds.

(3.) In response to the summons, the defendant appeared through his counsel and filed his written statement and also an additional written statement whereunder he admitted the constitution of the partnership firm between the plaintiff and himself in the year 1976 and its subsequent dissolution.