K BADRINARAYANA Vs. K LAKSHMIDEVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant.in the suit is the petitioner herein. This revision is filed by him against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Hindupur allowing I.A.No. 536 of 1991 filed for addition of certain property in the suit for partition.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that the respondent filed a suit for partitioning the suit schedule properties. Written statements were filed by the petitioner herein and other defendants. Subsequently I. A. No. 536 of 1991 was filed by the plaintiff contending that the wife of the first defendant purchased certain property out of the funds of the joint family and that therefore, the same property should be included in the suit schedule property for the purpose of partition. Therefore it should be added to the joint family property in the suit. The defendant filed the counter stating that the property is purchased by his wife and not from out of the joint family property funds. The Lower Court allowed the application on payment of costs. Aggrieved by it, the petitioner filed this C.R.P. in this Court.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the wife of the petitioner is not a party to the proceedings i.e., to the suit. If the Kartha of the joint family is in possession of the properries, he is accountable for the accounts and if he purchases any property, the same can be treated as joint family properties. He relies upon a decision of Supreme Court in M.N. Aryamurthi vs. M . D. Subbaraya Setty. But the facts of the said decision are quite different from the facts of the present case. Therefore, the said decision is not applicable to the case on hand. Even if the defendant No.1 petitioner purchases property, the same is liable for accounting. But the said property cannot be treated as joint family property.