Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. In the written statement filed by defendants No.1 and 2, they have admitted the relationship, the dates of death of L.K.Krishnaiah Setty and Smt.Pancharathnamma and the Partition Deed executed on 27.09.2004 as averred in para No.3 and 4 of the plaint. They have also admitted that the plaintiff issued the Legal Notice to the defendants for which, defendants No.1 and 2 have replied to it. They have denied the right of share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties. Their defences are that as per the Partition Deed dated 27.09.2004, the suit schedule properties were jointly allotted to the share of defendants No.1 and 2 and K.Venkatesh Babu. L.K.Krishnaiah Setty purchased the property bearing No.120, K.P.Agrahara Division, No.36, Bangalore. It was sold jointly by the plaintiff and the defendants after the death of L.K.Krishnaiah Setty to perform the marriage of the plaintiff and the 4 th defendant. Defendants No.1 and 2 have availed loan to perform their marriages. The 3rd defendant has filed suit in O.S.No.7828/2003 before this Court for partition of the properties left behind L.K.Krishnaiah Setty. The said suit was compromised between the parties. As per the compromise, the plaintiff and the defendants entered into registered Partition Deed dated 27.09.2004. Under the said partition, it was agreed that the 1st defendant being the widow of L.K.Krishnaiah Setty, K.Venkatesh Babu being the elder son of L.K.Krishnaiah Setty who was a chronic patient of paranoid schizophrenia and who remained as a bachelor and the 2nd defendant being the son of L.K.Krishnaiah Setty who was taking care of the 1st defendant and K.Venkatesh Babu would jointly take the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4 and Smt.Srilakshmi were allotted their respective shares as per the said Partition Deed. Apart from the money given under the Partition Deed, they were also given with Rs.5,50,000/- each in cash by defendants No.1 and 2. The suit schedule Item No.2 property was purchased by L.K.Krishnaiah Setty. After his death, the plaintiff and the defendants have entered into a Joint Development Agreement with M/s RNR Constructions. As per the said Joint Development Agreement, the builder agreed to give three flats to the legal heirs of L.K.Krishnaiah Setty. The 2 nd defendant putting a lot of efforts to get the said residential apartment constructed and to obtain their share from the builder. At the time of entering into Partition Deed dated 27.09.2004, the plaintiff and the defendants have agreed that the flats which fell to their share as per the Joint Development Agreement would be sold and the sale proceeds would be distributed among the plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4. Accordingly, the sale proceeds were distributed among them. Therefore, the suit schedule properties are remained in the joint possession of defendants No.1 and 2 and K.Venkatesh Babu. Venkatesh Babu was unmarried. He died on 19.12.2004. His natural mother predeceased him. Since the plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4 have given up their claim over the suit schedule properties, they are estopped from claiming any share in the suit schedule properties. Even after partition, defendants No.1 and 2 and K.Venkatesh Babu remained as joint family member and held the suit schedule properties jointly. Therefore, the share of K.Venkatesh Babu in the suit schedule properties would devolve by survivorship as per Hindu Succession Act. For the above reasons, the plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4 are not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties. Smt.Srilakshmi executed a registered Release Deed dated 29.07.2015 releasing her share in the suit schedule properties. Hence prayed to dismiss the suit.

18. The claim of the share of the plaintiff on the suit schedule properties as Class-II legal heir of the deceased K.Venkatesh Babu. PW1 during her cross-examination has admitted that she filed the suit claiming her share in the suit schedule properties out of the share of her elder brother. PW1 admitted during her cross-examination that as per Ex.P2, she has received her share in the properties of her father; she signed it admitting its contents and as per Ex.P2, she has no right over the suit schedule properties. DW1 and DW2 in their examination-in-chief have deposed that the plaintiff and other three daughters were also given Rs.5.50 lakhs each in cash by defendants No.1 and 2. On perusal of contents of Ex.P2, it appears that in the said partition, defendants No.1 and 2 and K.Venkatesh Babu took the suit schedule properties as their share; the plaintiff, the 4 th defendant and Smt.Srilakshmi took Rs.3.50 lakhs each and the 3 rd defendant took Rs.11.50 lakhs in cash as their share and the said amount was paid out of joint family funds. By executing Ex.P2, the plaintiff, defendants No.3 and 4 and Smt.Srilakshmi have relinquished their right, claimed and interest over the suit schedule properties. Such being the circumstances, the nature of the suit schedule properties became the joint property of defendants No.1 and 2 and K.Venkatesh Babu. After his death, it shall be devolved under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act.

19. The pleadings of defendants No.1 and 2 and the oral evidences of DW1 in his affidavit filed by way of examination- in-chief are that upon the death of K.Venkatesh Babu, the suit schedule properties would devolved by survivorship as per Hindu Succession Act and therefore, the plaintiff and others are not liable for further partition of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff cannot claim any share in the suit schedule properties as claimed by her. In that regard, the learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant has relied the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Vineeta Sharma V/s Rakesh Sharma & others (AIR 2020 SC 3717) and Vellikannu V/s R.Signaperumal & another [(2005) 6 SCC 622].

20. There is no merits in the above contention of the 2 nd defendant and the arguments of the learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant that upon the death of K.Venkatesh Babu, the suit schedule properties shall be devolved through survivorship. Because, it is admitted fact that any Partition Deed dated 27.09.2004, the suit schedule properties were given to the joint shares of defendants No.1 and 2 and K.Venkatesh Babu. From the said partition, the nature of joint family was disrupted. Defendants No.1 and 2 and K.Venkatesh Babu became the joint owners of the suit schedule properties. The said K.Venkatesh Babu died intestate without any wife and children. K.Venkatesh Babu died leaving behind only Class-II legal heirs. Therefore, upon his death, his share in the suit schedule properties shall be devolved under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 and not under Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Therefore, the above judgments relied by the learned Counsel for the 2nd defendant are not applicable to the present case on hand. In the judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff in the case between Shyam Narayan Prasad V/s Krishna Prasad & others [(2018) 7 SCC 646], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the share which a coparceners obtains on partition of ancestral property is ancestral property as regard to his male issue. After partition, property in the hands of a son continues to be ancestral property and son of that son (whether natural or adopted) takes interest on it and is entitled to it by survivorship. Here in this case, as aforesaid, K.Venkatesh Babu died issue less. Therefore, his right in the suit schedule properties cannot be devolved by survivorship. On the other hand, it shall be devolved through intestate succession i.e., under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. For the above reasons, the plaintiff has proved that she is entitled for share in the suit schedule properties in the share of K.Venkatesh Babu under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.