The court reinforced that all legal heirs hold a right to inherit property shares upon intestate death, making unauthorized sales by one heir ineffective against co-heirs.

JUDGMENT :

R. NATARAJ, J.

1. The defendant No.6 in O.S.No.6596/2003 on the file of the XXII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') has filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2009 passed therein by which, the suit filed by the plaintiffs was partly decreed and it was declared that the plaintiffs are entitled to undivided 1/4^th share in the suit property.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. The appellant was the defendant No.6, while respondent Nos.1 to 6 were the plaintiffs and respondent Nos.7 to 9 were the defendant Nos.1 to 3, while respondent No.10 was the defendant No.5.

3. The suit in O.S.No.6596/2003 was filed for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' 1/4^th share in the suit property. The suit property is a residential building constructed over a BDA site No.79, Corporation No.79/29, 5^th Cross, 5^th Block, SSI Area, Rajajinagar, Bengaluru, measuring east to west 50 feet and north to south 118 feet. The plaintiffs claimed that their propositus was one Sri. V. Raghavalu and he had three daughters named, Smt. R. Saroja, Smt. R. Chandra, Smt. R. Padmavathi and a son named, Sri. R. Padmanabhan. Sri. V. Raghavalu was allotted the suit property by the Bangalore Development Authority (henceforth referred to as 'BDA') and after his demise on 29.08.1977, his wife and four children succeeded to the suit property. The plaintiffs claimed that they are the grandchildren of Sri. V. Raghavalu and the children of Smt. R. Saroja. The defendant No.4 is the husband of Smt. R. Saroja. The plaintiffs claimed that they and the defendants were in joint possession of the suit property and they and defendant No.4 were entitled to 1/4^th share in the suit property. They claimed that despite repeated requests, the defendants were not willing to partition the property and therefore, they were constrained to seek for a partition of their share. They claimed that defendant No.1 had alienated the suit property in favour of the defendant No.6 on 11.08.2003. Thus, they contended that the sale by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant No.6, did not bind them and did not affect their interest in the suit property.

4. (i) The suit was contested by the defendant No.1, who did not dispute that the suit property was allotted to Sri. V. Raghavalu and that he died on 29.09.1977 leaving behind his son (the defendant No.1) and his wife, Smt. Venkatalakshmi. He claimed that after the death of his mother, Smt. Venkatalakshmi, he being the only son continued in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property. During the year 1983, he submitted an application to the BDA for transfer of the suit property to his name. Accordingly, the BDA by its order dated 24.10.1983, transferred the suit property to the name of defendant No.1 in terms of deed of transfer dated 04.12.1985. He claimed that the suit property thereafter was included within the limits of the erstwhile Bangalore City Corporation, which assigned the khata No.79/29. The defendant No.1 claimed that he had paid the property tax and thereafter, developed the suit property and inducted various tenants into the tenements and was collecting the rents. He admitted that during August 2003, he had sold away the property to the defendant No.6.

(ii) The defendant No.1 claimed that the mother of the plaintiffs and their father were in good terms with him and after the death of mother of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs started blackmailing him to extract money and when he did not heed to their unjust demand, they have com