VISHWANATH VENKATRAMAN HEGDE Vs. SHRIDHAR VENKATRAMAN HEGDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.22/2012, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Sirsi, has come up in this appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 7.1.2015, passed in the said proceedings.

(2.) The admitted facts are that, the plaintiff in the Court below is the appellant herein and respondents No.1 to 4 are the children of Venkatraman Hegde, who died on 11.11.2009. It is stated that the mother of the parties died earlier, on 26.10.2008. Therefore as on the date of death of father, the only legal heirs to the deceased Venkatraman Shankrappa Hegde, are the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4 in the Court below. The material available on record would indicate that, after the death of their father, the parties to the suit entered into a family arrangement by way of partition deed on 12.4.2011. In the said deed of partition all the immovable properties referred in schedule A and B are situated in Mundigesar village of Sirsi taluk in Uttara Kannada district. Out of that, schedule A properties are agricultural properties and schedule B property is a residential house. So far as schedule C properties is concerned, it is movable properties situated in schedule B property and schedule D property is with reference to fixed deposits in various banks, co-operative societies in the name of deceased father of plaintiff and defendants.

(3.) In terms of the partition deed dated 12.4.2011, registered as document No.SRS-1-00086- 2011-12 stored in C.D.No.SRSD36 of the office of Senior Sub-Registrar, Sirsi (UK) , all the movable properties referred in schedule C are allotted to the share of 1s t defendant. The plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 4 have taken cash out of suit schedule D property wherein the share which was allotted to plaintiff is Rs. 24,00,000/- in lieu of his claim to all the properties in schedule A to D in the suit schedule properties. Similarly respondents No.2, 3 and 4 are concerned, each one of them having already got married and money being spent for their marriage, they accepted Rs. 1,00,000/- towards their share as could be seen in Ex.P.25 produced and marked in the Court below. It is thereafter the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.22/2012 on the premise that the amount which was required to be paid to him in a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- in Ex.P.25 was not paid. Hence he sought for cancellation of said partition deed vide Ex.P.25 and sought for partition of all the joint family properties.