S. NARAHARI Vs. S.R. KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.10260/1990 dated 29.10.2011 on the file of XXVIII Additional City Civil Judge, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru (CCH.29).

(2.) The parties are referred to as per their original rankings before the Court below to avoid confusion and for the convenience of the Court. The brief facts of the case:-

(3.) The plaintiffs and one Mohan Kumar who is no more are the sons of the first defendant Smt.Anusuya Bai and defendants No.2 and 3 are the sons of Smt.Kamala Bai. Both Smt.Anusuya Bai and Smt.Kamala Bai are the sisters and daughters of one Arsoji Rao. It is the claim of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property originally belongs to the said Arsoji Rao and during his lifetime, he had executed a Will dated 17.7.1945 and he passed away on 30.9.1945. In terms of the said Will, the property was bequeathed in favour of the first defendant Smt.Anusuya Bai and the mother of the defendant Nos.2 and 3 Smt.Kamala Bai by creating life interest in their favour and it was only to the limited enjoyment for the life time and there was no any absolute right. It is contended that the defendant No.1 had filed suit in against the defendant Nos.2 and 3 and in the said suit, all of them have entered into the collusive compromise for the relief of partition. Hence, it is contended that first defendant was having only the life interest and ought not to have entered into the compromise with the defendant Nos.2 and 3, since the plaintiffs were having the vested interest in respect of the suit schedule property and the same is not binding. It is also the contention of the plaintiffs that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have only undivided - 1/2 share, at the most along with the plaintiffs who are co- sharers and co-owners of the other - 1/2 share. They are not having any right to cause any damage to the property. Having said so, the plaintiffs have sought for the following relief in the said suit:-