N R PADMAVATHI Vs. N R GURURAJA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of judgment and decree dated 28.03.2009 in O.S.No.5112/1988 on the file of I Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The defendants 1 to 5 in the said suit are the appellants in RFA No.682/2009. Defendants 16, 17 and 18 have filed the other appeal RFA No.743/2009, but this appeal now survives only with respect to defendant no.18, as in respect of the other two, there was a settlement.

(2.) Referring to the parties with respect to their respective rank in the suit, the pleadings are set out briefly as below:-

(3.) The plaintiff and the defendant Nos.1 to 6 are the sons of one N.Ramachandra Rao. This Ramachandra Rao had another son by name Srinivasamurthy through his first wife. Defendant Nos.7 is the wife and 8 to 12 are the children of Srinivasamurthy. Defendants 13 to 18 are the daughters of Ramachandra Rao. Ramachandra Rao died in the month of October 1970. His second wife Jayalakshmamma died in the year 1982. It is the plaintiff's case that his father Ramachandra Rao earned the properties described in items 1 to 7 of the plaint schedule. Ramachandra Rao constructed a Mutt of Sri Raghavendra Swamy Sannidhi in item No.1 of the plaint schedule out of his own earnings and he was doing Pooja in the said Mutt through out his life time. He also trained the plaintiff in doing Pooja. After death the of Ramachandra Rao, the first defendant started managing all the properties left behind by the father. The plaintiff and the defendants succeeded to the properties of their father. The first defendant prevented the plaintiff from doing Pooja at Sri Raghavendra Swamy Sannidhi and he engaged an Archak for doing Pooja at the Mutt depriving the legitimate right of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was using a portion of the item No.1 of the plaint schedule property, but because of intolerable troubles created by the first defendant, he left that portion by mortgaging it to one Keshavamurthy and set up his residence at another place. The plaintiff started mismanaging the joint family properties for his selfish acts ignoring the welfare of the joint family. The plaintiff expressed his desire to become separated from the joint family, but the defendant did not show any interest and therefore brought a suit seeking partition of the joint family properties and for mesne profits.