IMPORTANT POINT
The person in whose name a property is recorded would be, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, full owner of the same.

JUDGMENT

Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.—

1. Leave granted.

2. The subject matter of challenge before this Court is the judgment and order dated 1st December, 2006 passed by a Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal 617/2004 and in the cross objection 47/2006 filed under order 41, rule 22 against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.04 passed in Original Suit No.6169/92 by the XX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City.

3. The dispute arose out of a partition suit filed by i) Smt. Nagarathnamma wife of late G. Srinivas and ii) by G. Hemlata who was a minor at the time of filing of the suit in 1992. Plaintiff was the only child of the plaintiff No.1, who was her mother and natural guardian and she represented the plaintiff No.2. The plaintiffs are respondent Nos. 1 & 2 before this Court.

4. This suit was filed for partition claiming 1/3rd share in suit properties and also claiming separate possession by metes and bounds and for mesne profits and other incidental reliefs.

5. The first defendant in the suit is the mother-in-law of the plaintiff No.1 and the defendants 2, 3 & 4 are the daughters of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.5 is the son of the defendant No.1. Defendants 6 to 14 are tenants in the suit properties.

6. The plaint case is Sri. Ganganna, the father-in-law of the plaintiff No.1, expired in 1973 leaving behind his wife, three daughters and two sons. The genological table of the family is as under:-

Ganganna (Died in 1973)

Gangamma (Pet. 1)

Srinivas Yashoda Padma Manju Kumar S. Moorthy (son)(Died (Daughter) (Daughter) (Daughter) (Son) in 1984) (D-2) (R-3) (D-3)(P-2) (D-4 (P-3) D-5 (P-4)

Nagarathna (wife) (Plf. No.1) (R-1)

Hemalatha (daughter) (Plf. No.2) (R-2)

7. The suit properties consist of both agricultural lands and urban properties and the plaint case is they are ancestral properties belonging to the joint family. The further plaint case is though some of the properties stand in the name of first defendant, they were bought benami in her name by the late Ganganna out of the income from agricultural lands and the income of the first plaintiff’s husband who was working as an accountant in a private firm and drawing salary. He also had a leather business and had earning from running a taxi. Thus he was contributing seven to eight thousand every month to the family and out of such income the suit properties were purchased. The first defendant being a housewife had no income to purchase properties. However, latter on relationship between the plaintiff No.1 and her husband and defendant No.1 became strained and the plaintiff No.1 and her husband had to leave the ancestral house. The plaint case is that out of the properties those at item Nos. 1 to 4 are the joint family properties.

8. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, the plaint case was denied excepting the relationship between the parties. The other defendants adopted the stand of the first defendant.

9. The Trial Court however decreed the suit for partition in part and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/6th share in the schedule property and to separate possession by metes and bounds. They are also entitled to an enquiry into mesne profits under order 20, rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code.

10. Challenging the said judgment, the present appellants filed a Regular First Appeal being RFA 617/2004 and the plaintiff - respondent filed a cross objection, as mentioned above.

11. In the First Appeal the High Court found that no evidence was adduced by the appellant to show that she had any independent sources of income. It has also come in evidence that at the time of death of the husband of the appellant only G. Srinivasan was 16 years old and the other children of the appellant herein were minors and they had no income.

12. The High Court found that