B. RAJENDRAN Vs. S.K. BANGARU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O.S.No.71 of 1985 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Sankari are the appellants. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and the suit was dismissed and aggrieved by the same, this Appeal is filed.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiffs is as follows: - The first defendant S.K.Bangaru Naidu is the father and the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 are his children. The fourth defendant is the wife of the first defendant. In other words, the defendants 1 and 4 are the parents and the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 are their sons. The plaintiffs and the defendants constitute an Undivided Hindu Family and the properties belonged to the joint family and they are in joint possession of the same. Therefore, the plaintiffs got undivided 2/5 share in the property. It is further stated that the first item of the suit properties was allotted to the share of the first defendant in the family partition between the first defendant and his brothers and others in the year 1953 under a registered document dated 9.2.1953. The first defendant is the Kartha of the family. With the income from the joint family, he started news agency business, grocery business and other businesses. The plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 were later joined in the business and they also contributed for the improvement of the same. The joint family was running a typewriting institute in the name and style of Vasan Typewriting Institute and in the same building, the family was also running "Vasan News Mart" and "Usha Tailoring Institute". Apart from that, the family was also doing lottery chit business. The other items of suit properties were also purchased out of the joint family earnings and income from nucleus. In 1955, the defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiffs jointly borrowed a sum of Rs.2,000/ - by mortgaging the joint family properties and the amount was utilised for the joint family business and also for the purchase of the second item of the suit properties. In the year 1963, out of the joint family earnings, the third item of property was purchased in the name of the first defendant and in the year 1975, fourth item of property was purchased in the name of the fourth defendant benami for the members of the joint family. In the ancestral house, the second defendant is residing. The fifth item of the suit property was also purchased by the first defendant and it is a residential house site. In the first item of the suit property, the third defendant is residing. In the second item of suit property, the second plaintiff is residing. The first plaintiff is residing in a rented house. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/5 share together and the first defendant refused to divide the properties and therefore, the second plaintiff issued notice to the first defendant and that was replied by the first defendant stating that the properties were his self -acquired properties. The first defendant also settled the fifth item of the property in favour of the third defendant though the first defendant has no right to the said property. Therefore, the suit was filed for partition.

(3.) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: -