Regular First Appeal No. 73 of 2009. Case: M. Sundar Vs M.T. Nagaraju. High Court of Karnataka (India)
| Case Number | Regular First Appeal No. 73 of 2009 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: C.M. Nagabhushana, Advocate for L. Vijayakumar, Advocateand For Respondents: N.D. Jayadevappa, B.B. Bajentri, Vijayakumar and Sharada Havanur, Advocates |
| Judges | Anand Byrareddy, J. |
| Issue | Property Law |
| Judgement Date | January 20, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Karnataka (India) |
Judgment:
Anand Byrareddy, J.
-
This is a plaintiffs appeal.
-
The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.
-
The case of the plaintiff as stated, is as under:
The first defendant is said to be the elder brother of the plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3. They were said to constitute a Hindu joint family, with the first defendant as the Kartha.
It was claimed that property bearing No. 15, G. No. 16th Street, Ulsoor, Bangalore, was joint family property - which however stood in the name of Gangamma, the mother of the plaintiff. It is further stated that the defendants and the plaintiff had entered into an agreement of sale with one K.G. Ashwathnarayanaiah, to purchase his property bearing No. 58, MIG - KHB Colony, I Stage, III Main, Basaveshwaranagar, Bangalore - 560 079 and had paid an advance towards the sale consideration. However, since there was a paucity of funds to pay the balance price, the property at Ulsoor is said to have been sold and the proceeds were said to have been invested in purchasing the property at Basaveshwaranagar. The sale deed is said to have been executed in favour of defendant No. 1, as he was the eldest male member of the family and the Kartha.
It is stated that after the purchase of the above property at Basaveshwaranagar, which consisted of a single residential unit, it was decided to construct a duplex residential unit on the first floor, while also carrying out certain alterations in the ground floor - in order to accommodate all the members of the family, albeit with individual units for each. Additional construction was accordingly made. The property is said to have been re-numbered as 58/8.
It then transpires that differences arose between the plaintiff and the defendants as to expenses incurred in the renovation and additional construction that was effected. Since the plaintiff was unable to reconcile with the defendants, he is said to have opted to separate himself from the joint family and demanded his share of the property. It appears the defendants did not respond and therefore, the suit was filed, in the plaintiff seeking partition of the suit property and his one-fourth share therein.
-
The defendants had entered appearance and it was contended by the first defendant that there was joint family status as the plaintiff had left the family much prior to the suit. That the claim of the plaintiff as to the property at Ulsoor, which stood in the name of...
To continue reading
Request your trial