V RAJKUMAR Vs. V SRIDHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit of the present respondent No.1 in his capacity as a plaintiff filed in the Court of learned XXVIII Addl.City Civil Judge, Bengaluru, (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court ), against the present appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3 (Respondent Nos.3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) being legal representatives of deceased 3rd respondent) as defendants therein for the relief of partition and separate possession, came to be decreed by the judgment and decree dated 14.01.2011, passed in O.S.No.16483/2001. Challenging the said judgment and decree, the defendant No.1 in the trial Court has preferred this appeal.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court is that he being the younger brother of the defendants, the plaint 'A schedule property being his father s, who died intestate on 25.09.1980 and his mother also having died subsequently, was entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties. It was his further contention that the suit schedule 'B property is a family business being run by defendant No.1 on behalf of the joint family, as such, the defendant No.1 was liable to give accounts in respect of the business carried on in the plaint 'B schedule property from the year 1980 and he (plaintiff) is entitled for 1/4th share in respect of 'B schedule property also.

(3.) The defendant No.1 (appellant herein) contested the matter by filing written statement. Though he admitted that suit schedule 'A property was purchased by their father Sri V.C.V.Chellam, but, it was specifically contended by defendant No.1 that in the year 1989, when the family members met and decided, including the plaintiff, that the defendant No.1 shall become the absolute owner and nobody else had a right over the said suit schedule property as the defendant No.1 redeemed the three mortgages made by his father V.C.V.Chellam pertaining to 'A schedule property, accordingly, the plaintiff and other family members signed the document for changing katha in the name of the defendant No.1. After changing the katha, the defendant No.1 put up construction of the first floor and allowed the plaintiff to reside in the same.