Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This is plaintiffs' appeal challenging the judgment and decree of the trial Court which has dismissed their suit for partition on the ground, there is no joint family and the schedule properties are not joint family properties and also on the ground that the suit for partial partition is not maintainable and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

10. The Trial Court on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are the Joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendan ts.

Defendants have dearly established that the suit sche dule properties were the self-acquired properties of late Naga ppa goud. Plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are In Joint possession of the suit schedule properties with the defendants. Plaintiffs have no right over the suit schedule property and therefore they are not entitled to any share therein. The plaintiffs have failed to establish that I. M.Nagappa goud has executed a Will Deed dated 25-9-1953 in favour of Earana goud. The defendants have established the oral partition between M.Laxman goud and Nagappa goud in the year 1932. As the plaintiffs have not Impleaded their sisters and suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. As admittedly 400 acres of land which was standing In the name of plaintiffs which is also according to them is an ancestral property is not included in the suit, the suit for partial partition is not maintainable. For the aforesaid reason the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.

It is not joint family business and from the money derived from the said business he has purchased the suit sche dule properties of about 131 acres of agricultural land in the very same village. In fact the first defendant borrowed Rs.28,00,000/- and demolished the old structure and has put up 38 shops which are let out to various tenants. When once the plaintiff admit the family owned 400 acres of land when admittedly they have not included the same in the plaint schedule on their own showing a suit for partial partition is not maintainable. Similarly defendants contend the suit is not maintainable for nonjoinder of his sisters who are necessaiy parties. Till today they are not impleaded. Therefore the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs on the aforesaid grounds. Therefore he submits no case for interference is made out.