The legality and correctness of the Judgment passed by the 4th Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, Mayo Hall Unit dt.25.9.2004 in O.S.No.355/2005 is called in question in this appeal.

2. Theappellant was the plaintiff. Deceased R-1 was the 1st defendant and R-2 was 2nd defendant in the Trial Court. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff claiming 1/2 share in the plaint schedule property and for account from 1.7.1978 till the date of suit and also for future mesne profits.

3. The subject matter of the suit is property bearing Municipal old No.6, New No.28 situated at Lalbagh Road (also called as Mission Road), Bangalore which consists of main building, out house, cottage, garage, etc measuring on the eastern side 192.3 ft + 35 ft, west by 207.3 ft north by 94 ft. south by 86 ft. 8 inches. In all, 19863 sq.ft. with a building of 14639 sq.ft.

4. According to the plaint averments, the plaintiff is the only son of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff and 1st defendant constituted a joint Hindu family and they are governed by Mithaksara School of Law. The 1st defendant was a member of a joint family of which the grand father of the plaintiff Manjanathaiah was the Karta and that the joint family had properties and there was an oral partition dream among the grand father of the plaintiff and his uncle and the 1st defendant on 1.4.1955, which later reduced into regular deed of partition on 8.5.1955. In the aforesaid partition, an estate known as Biligere estate and cash was given to the share of the 1st defendant. After 1.4.1955 the defendant-1 was enjoying the joint family property as a karta and that the plaintiff being the only son is entitled to claim equal share in all the suit schedule properties.

The suit property was purchased by the 1st defendant from K.P.Arsiwala and others under registered sale deed dated 30.3.1968 and the sale consideration was paid by the 1st defendant from out of the joint family income and the unpaid sale consideration was later paid out of the joint family income of the family. A building was constructed by the 1st defendant and the same was let out to the tenants.

It is the case of the plaintiff that there was an oral partition. Later the same was recorded in writing on 1.11.68 between him and his father the 1st defendant. In the said partition, the plaintiff was allotted half share in the joint family property. Remaining half share had fallen to the share of the 1st defendant and since 1.11.1968 1st defendant being the father of the plaintiff has no right to represent the plaintiff in any manner in view of the properties divided and joint family has been severed between him and the 1st defendant. According to him from 1.11.1968 the plaintiff and defendants are enjoying the properties as tenants-in-common and the partition of 1.11.1968 has been admitted and accepted by the Agricultural Income Tax Officer also. The plaintiff being a minor, the profits and loss accounts were annually maintained by the defendant-1 and accounts of the plaintiff was maintained separately in view of the partition dated 1.11.1968.

It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff’s family was not a trading family and it is an agricultural family. It appears, the 1st defendant flouted a company known as M/s Agro Private Limited and the venture of the 1st defendant was highly speculative one and that the plaintiff was no way concerned or interested in the company and much less the defendant-1 could deal with the property of the plaintiff in order to run the business flouted under the name and style M/s Agro Private Ltd. It appears, the firm was flouted in the aforesaid name on or about 1.1.1973 and the right of the 1st defendant in the suit property was thrown into the hotchpot of the firm and thereafter the 1st defendant agreed to sell the property in favour of the 2nd defendant for a sum of Rs.13 Lakhs under the agreement dated 20.4.1978. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was received by the defendant-1 under the agreeme