Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

12. Defendant No.8 has also filed additional written statement contending that as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, even if only a life interest has been conferred in accordance it would enlarge into a full estate. Hence the defendant is competent to deal with the house property as she likes and the property in question is the separate property of Smt. Rajamma. The schedule 2(b) property was the absolute property of the defendant No.1. The limited interest or the life estate vested in Smt. Rajamma would blossom into an absolute estate, as per Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The defendant No.1 has absolute rights in the suit schedule 2(b) property to deal with in any manner she deems fir. The property was possessed by Smt. Rajamma and was of her full ownership. The plaintiff's contention that the said property was acquired by Late. Dr.G.N.Ramachandraiah for the benefit of the family is stoutly denied. The suit filed by the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation since the plaintiff had the knowledge of the sale of the property in favour of this defendant way back in the year 1985 and the suit is admittedly filed on 7.6.1991. It is further contended by the defendant No.8 that he was in possession of the property and later put up constructions at his cost investing his hard earned money and also cleared a loan taken on the property by Smt. Rajamma and also cleared the loan he had taken to put up construction on the suit schedule item No.2 of B. The khatha also stood exclusively in the name of this defendant. It is further contended that Dr.G.N.Ramachandraiah had purchased a fertile agricultural land in the name of the plaintiff, when he was not even earning. The plaintiff ought to have disclosed and put this property in the hotchpotch along with Schedule 'A' property and sought for an equitable partition along Schedule 'A' property. The plaintiff not having brought in Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.366 of Magadi Village, Kudur Hobli, Hulikal Grama, entire joint family properties have not been brought into the common hotchpotch. It is further contended by the defendant No.8 that the said properties were absolute properties of the defendant No.1 and the sale deed, gift deed and the testamentary document under which she has transferred the properties are binding and valid documents and plaintiff cannot contend such transfers made by here are invalid or void. Defendant No.8 has further contended that he had let it out and was collecting the rent which has never been objected by the plaintiff or any of the defendants. This fortifies the fact that he has purchased the said property for valuable consideration. It is further contended that the sale deed dated 16.10.1985 under which the property has been conveyed is a valid document and for valuable consideration and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the prayer claimed.