A plea of oral partition lacks merit unless supported by documentary evidence, as admissions alone cannot establish prior partition without corroboration.

JUDGMENT :

RAVI V HOSMANI, J.

Challenging judgment and decree dated 19.12.2009 passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Mysore, in RA no.22/2008, this appeal is filed.

2. Brief facts as stated are that appellants were defendants in OS no.106/2007 filed by respondent (plaintiff) seeking partition and separate possession of 1/3^rd share in lands bearing Sy.no.154/1, measuring 7.7 guntas and Sy.no.159/1, measuring 1 Acre 2 guntas situated in Siddapura village; And also in Sy.no.185/2, measuring 1 Acre 38 guntas; Sy.no.207/3A, measuring 1 Acre 28 guntas and Sy.no.128/6, measuring 39 guntas, situated in Bhuvanahalli village (for short 'suit properties'); and for mesne profits etc.

3. In plaint, it was stated, plaintiff was daughter of late Cheluvaiah @ Huchaiah through his first wife - Smt.Javaramma, defendants were his children from 2^nd wife. It was stated, plaintiff and defendants constituted Hindu Undivided Family ('HUF' for short) and that suit properties were their joint family properties. It was stated, during his life time, Cheluvaiah was karta and maintaining suit properties. Therefore, revenue records stood in his name. And about 15 years earlier Cheluvaiah died intestate. Therefore, plaintiff and defendants succeeded to suit properties.

4. Such being case, without her consent, defendants attempted to knock-off suit properties and got their names mutated in revenue records. Plaintiff opposed same and questioned defendants. When they gave evasive reply and denied share in suit properties and did not account for income derived from suit properties, she got issued legal notice demanding her 1/3^rd share in suit properties. When there was no reply and defendants were making efforts to sell suit properties, present suit was filed.

5. On appearance, defendants filed written statement denying plaint averments. Relationship of plaintiff as daughter of late Cheluvaiah through first wife was admitted. Even defendants being her brothers as children through second wife was admitted. Existence of joint family including plaintiff and defendants was denied. Even suit properties being joint family properties were denied. Allegation about attempt to knock off suit properties by defendants was denied. It was stated, marriage of plaintiff with Kalahanumaiah of Mavatthur village, Hebbal Hobli, KR Nagar was celebrated during lifetime of Cheluvaiah, 50 years earlier by spending huge. At that time, Cheluvaiah had purchased land bearing Sy.no.81/4, measuring 2 Acres 21 guntas in Mavatthur village in name of plaintiff’s husband – Kalahanumaiah. It was stated, since marriage, plaintiff was residing in her matrimonial home which owned more than 12 Acres of immovable properties and a house. Thus, plaintiff was not concerned with family of defendants. It was also stated, item no.3 of suit properties i.e. land bearing Sy.no.185/2, measuring 7 guntas out of 1 Acre 38 guntas was acquired by Special Land Acquisition Officer, H.P., Hunsur and defendants had received compensation. It was further stated, on 15.10.1990 i.e. during life time of Cheluvaiah, properties were partitioned between defendants by executing panchayat paalu parikath, with properties in schedule ‘A’ allotted to defendant no.1, schedule ‘B’ to defendant no.2, subject to payment of two kanduga paddy and Rs.100/- per month by each defendants to Cheluvaiah. Since then, defendants were in separate possession and enjoyment o