Regular First Appeal No. 1528/2003. Case: Kum Anusha D/o Late Sri P.M. Guru Murthy Since Being Minor represented by her Mother Appellant-2 as her Natural Guardian and Smt. N. Pushpa W/o Late P.M. Guru Murthy Vs Smt. Rudramma W/o Late Marulasiddaiah. High Court of Karnataka (India)
| Case Number | Regular First Appeal No. 1528/2003 |
| Counsel | For the Appellant: H. Kantha Raju, Adv. and For the Respondents: A. Anada Shetty, Adv., A.V. Gangadharappa, Adv |
| Judges | N. Kumar and B. Sreenivase Gowda, JJ. |
| Issue | Property Laws |
| Judgement Date | November 06, 2009 |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka (India) |
Judgment:
N. Kumar, J., (At Bangalore)
-
This is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court which has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession on the ground that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
-
For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.
-
The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff No. 1 is the minor daughter of 2nd plaintiff and late P.M. Gurumurthy. One Kanthaiah is the propositus. He has a son by name P.K. Marulasiddaiah. His wife is Rudramma. They had 5 daughters by name Girijamnia, Kalavethi, Charuiramma, Nagarathnamma and Usha and a son by name Gurumurthy. Sri P.K. Manilasiddaiah had got ancestral property at Pattangere Village, Kadur Taluk and purchased several other properties and registered the same in the name of his wife i.e., 1st defendant Rudramma. Marulasiddaiah was working as a Village Secretary. After retirement, he died. Plaintiff are the legal heirs of P.M. Gurumurthy. During the life time of P.K. Marulasiddaiah, the marriage of all the daughters took place except the last daughter Usha and the son Gurumurthy. Both of them were married on the same date. To meet the expenses of the said marriage, he had sold the properties at Pattangere Village in Kadur Taluk to settle all the accounts. During the year 1999, there was a settlement among the members of the family regarding gold jewels and other monetary benefits. Accordingly, the properties of his mother came to the share of Gurumurthy. All the daughters were married and they were staying in their respective husband's house. After the death of P.M. Gurumurthy on 30.9.2000, all the properties which were in as possession came to the exclusive possession of the defendant. She was looking after the schedule properties after the death of Gurumurthy. The defendant has created charge and encumbrances over the suit schedule property at the instigation of her relatives thereby causing loss to the schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs wanted their share of the schedule property by partition and giving to their possession. Therefore, they filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendant.
-
The defendant after service of summons entered appearance, filed a detailed written statement and contested the claim, She contended all the properties in the possession of the defendant are her self-acquired properties...
To continue reading
Request your trial