The judgment establishes that in claims for partition of joint family properties, the burden of proof rests on the claimant to demonstrate the existence of joint ownership, and the principles of res judicata can bar subsequent claims if the issues have been previously adjudicated.

JUDGMENT

1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 28/6/2017 passed in R.A.No.21/2015 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tumakuru.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that her father T K Laxmana @ T K Laxmanappa died in the year 2007 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 13 as sole successors. It is also contended that the said T K Laxmana got released from his joint family by executing the release deed dtd. 22/12/1949. It is contended that her father commenced petty engineering work at Garden road, Tumkur. Due to joint efforts and hard labour of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.3, 8, 12, T L Parthasarathy, deceased T L Anandha Babu, T K Laxmana @ Laxmanappa established the industry under the name and style "Jaya Laxmi Industries and Engineering Work" at Garden Road, Tumkur. Out of the income derived from the industries, her father purchased item Nos.1 and 2 in the suit 'A' schedule in his name under the sale deed dtd. 29/7/1962 and item Nos.1 to 21 of 'B' schedule are also purchased by her father out of the income derived from the joint family. T K Ramanna @ Ramaiah who is none other than younger brother of plaintiff's father by his tricking and deceptive tactics became very close to T K Laxmana @ T K Laxmanappa. The things have gone to the extent that T K Laxmana does not carry his work without saying by T K Ramanna. All the children of T K Laxmana @ T K Laxmanappa were under the care and control of his father even after their marriage.

4. It is further contended that during the lifetime of T K Laxmana @ Laxmanappa, he managed the affairs of the joint family consisting of defendant Nos.2 to 13. By taking the situation of above, the said T K Ramanna got prepared a General Power of Attorney supposed to be executed by the plaintiff, defendant Nos.3, 8, 12, T L Parthasarathy and T L Anandha Babu on 4/2/1985 by saying that he intended to sell his property which was acquired by him under the grant. The said T K Laxmana @ T K Laxmanappa also intended to sell his family property because of sudden down of business in the industries. Banking on the words of T K Ramanna, the father of the plaintiff insisted his children to affix their signature on the paper and accordingly, plaintiff, defendant Nos.3, 8, T L Parthasarathy and T L Anandha Babu affixed their signature to the said document without reading the same. However, subsequently, business in the industry was recovered. Later, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 13 came to know the fraud done by the T K Ramanna but the father of the plaintiff was not in position to hear the words of his children as he was fully dominated by T K Ramanna. On the strength of said GPA, T K Ramanna sold the properties situated at Tumkur bearing municipal No.131/A and 131/B. Amount paid by the purchaser was utilized by defendant No.13. Inspite of the same, T K Laxmana colluding with his brother sold item Nos.1 and 2 in 'A' schedule property to defendant No.14 under the sale deed dtd. 6/10/2005. After the purchase of 'A' schedule property, defendant No.14 converted the land into nonagricultural land and sold the same by way of registered Gift Deed in favour of defendant Nos.16 to 25 on different dates.

5. It is further contended that her father has no exclusive right to sell the suit 'A' schedule property in favour of defendant No.14 and there is no division in the family of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 12. The alleged sale deed dtd. 6/10/2005 executed by her father in favour of defendant No.14 in respect of suit 'A' schedule property is not binding on the share of the plaintiff. It is further contended that the alleged gift deeds executed by defendant Nos.14 and 15 in respect of suit 'A' schedule property in favour of defendant Nos.16 to 25 are also not binding on the share of the plaintiff. The grant of old Sy.No.36/