INDER SINGH CHOWDHARY Vs. SURYA PRAKASH &M ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree of dismissal of the suit dated 07.11.2007 passed in O.S.No.5893/2000 on the file of the XIV Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (CCH No.28).

(2.) The Brief facts of the case are:

(3.) The defendants No.1 and 2 after service of summons appeared through counsel and filed written statement admitting the relationship that Smt. Ghishibai is the maternal grand mother of the defendants. It is contended that the plaintiff is also a grand son of Smt.Ghishibai. The plaintiff has suppressed the same in the plaint. The plaintiff's father is the adopted son of Smt.Ghishibai. Though the defendants have denied that the plaintiff has paid a sum of Rs.52,000/-, they have admitted that he has paid only Rs.17,000/-. It was the pious duty of the plaintiff to serve his grand mother. The plaintiff's father and mother have failed to take care of Smt.Ghishibai. Therefore, Ghishibai was residing with her daughter Smt.Roopa Kanwar since 1960. Smt.Roopa Kanwar was looking after the expenses of Smt. Ghishibai. The plaintiff has not paid the sum of Rs.17,000/- as loan.The plaintiff's father Sri Bhanwarlalji Chowdhary is in possession of movable and immovable property left by Smt.Ghishibai at Bhilwara village, Badnore District. The defendants are not in possession of gold and silver ornaments of Smt.Ghishibai. Smt. Ghishibai left behind her only 4 Chudies. They were sold for the funeral expenses of Smt.Ghishibai. The notice issued by plaintiff was suitably replied. There is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and Ghishibai. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit claim. The other contentions raised by the defendants are that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.