Back
Karnataka High Court
P.S.SALRAM - Appellant
Versus
P.S.RAMA RAO PISEY - Respondent
Decided On : 03-08-01
R.F.A. : 720 of 1997
The suit properties were held to be joint family properties of the plaintiff, Defendant-1 and Defendant-2. The deed of settlement executed by Defendant-1 in favor of Defendant-2 was held to be invalid and not binding on the plaintiff or other sharers. The will executed by Defendant-1 was also held to be ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff or other heirs. The shares of the parties were determined based on the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Karnataka Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 1994. The plaintiff was held to be entitled to 11/30th share, Defendant-2 was held to be entitled to 11/30th share, and the daughters of Defendant-1 were held to be entitled to 1/30th share each.
Fact of the Case:
The suit properties were held to be joint family properties of the plaintiff, Defendant-1 and Defendant-2. The deed of settlement executed by Defendant-1 in favor of Defendant-2 was held to be invalid and not binding on the plaintiff or other sharers. The will executed by Defendant-1 was also held to be ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff or other heirs. The shares of the parties were determined based on the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Karnataka Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 1994. The plaintiff was held to be entitled to 11/30th share, Defendant-2 was held to be entitled to 11/30th share, and the daughters of Defendant-1 were held to be entitled to 1/30th share each.
Finding of the Court:
The suit properties were held to be joint family properties of the plaintiff, Defendant-1 and Defendant-2. The deed of settlement executed by Defendant-1 in favor of Defendant-2 was held to be invalid and not binding on the plaintiff or other sharers. The will executed by Defendant-1 was also held to be ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff or other heirs. The shares of the parties were determined based on the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Karnataka Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 1994. The plaintiff was held to be entitled to 11/30th share, Defendant-2 was held to be entitled to 11/30th share, and the daughters of Defendant-1 were held to be entitled to 1/30th share each.
Issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that item No. 1 of plaint schedule is a joint family property? 2) Whether plaintiff proves that there was joint family business and that items 2. to 4 were acquired from the income and funds, of joint family business as alleged ? 3) Whether suit properties are self acquired properties of first defendant ? 4) Whether suit is not maintainable ? 5) What relief ?
Ratio Decidendi: The deed of settlement executed by Defendant-1 in favor of Defendant-2 was held to be invalid and not binding on the plaintiff or other sharers. The will executed by Defendant-1 was also held to be ineffective and not binding on the plaintiff or other heirs. The shares of the parties were determined based on the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as amended by the Karnataka Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 1994. The plaintiff was held to be entitled to 11/30th share, Defendant-2 was held to be entitled to 11/30th share, and the daughters of Defendant-1 were held to be entitled to 1/30th share each.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the Trial Court is hereby modified only to the extent of share of parties as above, holding the plaintiff appellant to be entitled to a partition of his 11/30th share in suit properties except item no. 4 of the plaint schedule. Rest of the decree of the trial Court and direction contained therein are maintained. R. F. A. No. 720 of 1997, as such, is hereby dismissed in toto. The parties to the appeals shall bear their respective costs of this Court and Trial Court.
( 1 ) THE above regular first appeals arise out of the judgment and decree dated 30th June 1997 passed by X Addl. City Civif Judge, mayo hall, Bangalore, in O. S. No. 4156/1980 declaring the plaintiff to be entitled to 1/8th share each in item nos. 1 to 3 of the suit schedule properties and for its separate possession by metes and bounds and further holding that defendants nos. 1 (c), 1 (d), (e), 1 (f), 1 (g), 1 (h) and second defendant are also entitled to 1/8th share each in item nos. I to 3 of the suit schedule properties. It further ordered and decreed that the plaintiff is at liberty to get the business accounts ascertained of the business carried on or done in item no. 1 of the suit schedule property at the time of drawing final decree. So far as the partition of item no. 4 of the plaint schedule property, the Court below held that the claim for partition is rejected or dismissed and further defendants 1 (a) and 1 (b) are not entitled to any share in the ,suit schedule properties. From the above judgment and decree, the plaintiff filed the appeal in R. F. A. No. 695. 1997 and Defendant no. 2 and Defendant no. 1 (e) filed the appeal in R. F. A. No. 720/1997.
( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff's case, the plaintiff and Defendant-2 have been the sons of P. S. Sadashiva Rao. While the Plaintiff has been the son of Defendant-1 P. E. Sadashiva Rao from his first wife smt Godavari Bai, and Defendant-2 is the son of Defendant-1 from his second wife Smt. Sumitra Bai. The plaintiff and defendants according to the plaint allegations were the member of joint Hindu family which inherited according to the plaintiff's case the premises bearing No. 151 (old No. 35) in Commercial Street, Bangalore and the premises bearing No. 262 Cavelry Road, Bangalore. According to the plaintiff's case under the deed of family arrangement, dated 27-11-1947, the aforesaid properties did fell to the share of defendant-1 i. e. , RE. Sadashiva Rao and his brother P. E. Panduranga Rao. According to the plaintiff's case P. S. Panduranga rao had instituted a suit in O. S. No. 56/1961 and compromise was arrived at therein between Defendant-1 and Panduranga Rao and as per the terms of the compromise the property bearing No. 151 of the Commercial Street was allotted to Defendant-1 P. E Sadashiva rao and the property bearing No 262- Cavelry Road, Bangalore, was allotted to Panduranga Rao and to equalise the shares defendant-1 Sadashiva Rao paid a sum of Rs. 8,000/- to Panduranga rao. According to the plaintiff's case Defendant-1 Sadashiva Rao was carrying on the business of Textile and Tailoring in the premises bearing No. 151, Commercial Street, Bangalore, under the name and style M/s Pissey Brothers. The plaintiff according to his own case was assisting Defendant-1 in the carrying on of the business. The plaintiff further alleged that Defendant-1 began to ill-treat the plaintiff and his sisters after having entered into second marriage or to say he took second wife viz. , Sumithra Bai. The plaintiff's mother having died according to the plaintiff. Defendant-1 married Smt. Sumithra Bai as second wife. The plaintiff alleged that on 23-2-1978 defendant-1 executed the deed of settlement settling the shop premises in Commercial Street in favour of the second defendant and therein he described his right to the said property as absolute.
( 3 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff's case, Defendant-1 was not competent to settle the said property in favour of Defendant-2, as according to the plaintiff the properties in question have been the joint Hindu family properties and as such the plaintiff alleged that the settlement deed not to be valid and binding on him. The plaintiff alleged that after the joint acquisition Defendant-1 acquired other properties viz. , the site bearing No 211, Indiranagar, Site No. 106, Indiranagar, and another site in W. H. Hanumanthappa Layout as has been mentioned in detail in the schedule to the plaint. The plaintiff asserted tha
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
