The authority of a karta to sell joint family properties for legal necessity is upheld, restricting the plaintiffs' claims in a partition suit.

JUDGMENT :

UMESH M. ADIGA, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs under Section 100 of CPC, challenging the judgment and decree dated 28^th October 2009, passed in R.A.No.29/2001, on the file of Fast Track and Addl. District Judge, Holenarasipura, (for short `first Appellate Court'), which arose from the judgment and decree dated 19<sup>th</sup> March 2001, passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.,) Holenarasipura, (for short `trial Court') in O.S.No.22/1993.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. This litigation is pending for more than last three decades. Plaintiffs have filed the suit in O.S.No.22/1993, on 11.03.1993, seeking partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties. The said suit was seriously contested by defendant No.3. Thereafter, the said suit was decreed by the trial Court by judgment and decree dated 19.03.2001. The trial Court awarded 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule properties in favour of the plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant Nos.2 to 8 filed Regular Appeal No.22/2001, before the first Appellate Court.

4. The first Appellate Court after hearing the arguments, reversed the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2001 passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Challenging the divergent findings of the trial Court, as well as first Appellate Court, plaintiffs have preferred this regular second appeal under Section 100 of CPC.

5. To dispose of this appeal, the brief facts of case of the parties before the trial Court are as under:

It is the case of the plaintiffs that original propositus of the family was one S.K.Narasimhaiah and his wife was one Smt.Giriyamma. They were parents of plaintiffs and defendant no. 1 and 2. They had four daughters who are respondent Nos.8 to 11 in this appeal. Narasimhaiah inherited the properties from his ancestors and the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff of defendant Nos.1 and 2. It is the further case of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 that they were residing in Bengaluru and defendant No.2 was residing in Mysuru.

6. It is further contended that defendant No.2 started being very close to his father Narasimhaiah and it was learnt by the plaintiff that defendant No.2 created certain documents by misusing his closeness with his father. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, creation of such document will not bind the rights of the plaintiff.

7. It is further contended that Narasimhaiah, father of the plaintiff had died five to six months prior to filing of the suit. Thereafter, plaintiff demanded for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties. The defendants refused to effect partition:

Therefore, he was constrained to file the suit. The plaintiff also avered about pendency of a suit in O.S.No.23/2001 said to be filed the 2^nd defendant, seeking the relief of partition in respect of house property. It is also stated that the said suit pertains to different property and it would not affect the rights of the parties in the present suit. With these reasons, plaintiff prayed to decree the suit for partition and separate possession of his 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule properties.

8. The defendant Nos.3, 4 and 7 have filed common written statement. Defendant No.2 filed separate written statement. The defendant No.