Plaintiffs must show joint entitlement to property; mere relationship is insufficient if contrary evidence exists such as prior settlements and alienations.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri B.L.Nanda Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri C.V. Sudhindra and Sri N. Vageesh, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants challenging the validity of the judgment of dismissal of the suit bearing O.S No.82/2000 dated 20.02.2006 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Nanjanagudu.

3. Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience as per their original ranking before the Trial Court.

4. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs with the following prayer in respect of the following properties hereinafter referred to as ‘suit property’.

“WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs prays that this Hon'ble court may be pleased pass a Judgment and Decree:

(a) Effecting the partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and further declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/12 share, each in the suit schedule property fallen into the share of the deceased Sri.K.A. Anantha Padmanabha Rao, and put the plaintiffs in separate possession and enjoyment of the same.

(b) to award mesne profits to the plaintiffs

(3) directing the defendant No.7 not to accept or admit the execution of the sale deed to any persons,

(d) such other order/relief as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY

“All that piece and parcel of the immovable house property bearing No.3844, "Eshwar Prasad", 15th cross, Rastrapathi Road, Nanjangud, Mysore district measuring East to West 50 feet and North to South 88 feet, with tiled roof and mud roof bounded on:

5. In the plaint, it is contented that father of the plaintiffs namely Sri K.A.Padmanabha Rao has inherited the suit property. The suit property remained joint and it was not partitioned. Defendant No.6 being the brother of the plaintiffs, taking advantage of death of Padmanabha Rao who died on 11.11.1996, sold the property in favour of defendant No.8- H.S.Ramesh, by way of a registered sale deed.

6. It is contended that, initially the property was acquired by Krishnappa who is the grandfather of the plaintiffs and defendant No.6. Said Krishnappa having died intestate, the property was inherited by Padmanabha Rao. Therefore, sixth defendant selling the suit property in favour of the eighth defendant is incorrect and did not bind the rights of the plaintiffs and thus sought for decreeing of the suit.

7. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6 entered appearance through Advocate Sri Suresh. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 were placed ex-parte. Defendant No.7 though appeared did not choose to file written statement.

8. Defendant No.1 filed the written statement contending that the suit is not maintainable and plaintiffs being the daughters, are not entitled to file such a suit for partition in respect of the suit property which got concluded even during the lifetime of Sri Padmanabha Rao in the year 1988.

9. Relationship of the parties, no doubt being admitted by the defendants, they contended that plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6 are not the joint family members and therefore plaintiffs have no right in respect of the suit property.

10. Defendant No.1 also denied the fact that he clandestinely sold four items of the joint family properties measuring about 9½ acres of fertile land in Nallitarpura Village, Hullahally Hobli, Nanjangud Taluk in the year 1968. Other averments in the plaint, attributing malafides to 6^th defendant were also denied by the 6^th defendant.

11. In the separate written statement, 6^th defendant also