Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. On issuance of suit summons, defendants appeared through their counsel. 1st defendant resisted the suit of the plaintiff by filing his individual written statement asserting that, plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and also denied the case of plaintiff that, plaintiff's mother had acquired the suit schedule properties under registered sale deeds dt: 17.1.2004 and 3.2.2014. He also denied that, another property was acquired by his wife Smt.Ambamma under registered sale deed dt:15.7.2013. It is specifically asserted that, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit and alleged cause of action is nothing but an illusion. At Para-5 of the written statement it is specifically mentioned that, this defendant and late Smt.Ambamma being the parents of plaintiff and defendants No.2 and 3, had performed the marriage of plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff, who got married to Sri Sheshappa about 20 years back and started to living in her matrimonial house at Raichuru District. After plaintiff's marriage, the defendant No.2 and 3 were taking care of Smt.Ambamma and this defendant. Thereafter, the 2 nd defendant got married to Smt.Manathamma and has two sons by name Manoj and Akash. 3Rd defendant got married to Smt.Vidyashree and also has two sons by name Santhosh and Yashawanth. The wife and children of 2 nd and 3rd defendants are not made as parties to the suit. The suit is not maintainable and bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. 2Nd and 3rd defendants jointly earned and purchased item No.1 of the suit schedule property in the name of their mother Smt.Ambamma under registered sale deed dt:17.1.2004. They also purchased jointly another site bearing No.17, old khata No.262/2, new khata No.2788, measuring east to west 46 ft., and north to south 30 ft., in the name of 1 st defendant under a registered sale deed dt:24.1.2004 and said property was situated at Basavanapura, Krishnarajapura, Bengaluru East Taluk, the same has been given to the share of plaintiff under registered Gift Deed dt:13.6.2007. Subsequently, the plaintiff has executed a release deed in favour of defendants on 19.12.2007 in presence of the witnesses in respect of suit schedule properties and some other properties, which are situated at Manvi Taluk, Raichuru District. This property is not included in the suit and hence, suit is bad for non-inclusion of necessary properties. Suit for partial partition is not maintainable. The plaintiff has suppressed these facts and has filed the above case just to harass the defendants. It is further mentioned that, 2nd and 3rd defendant jointly purchased another site bearing No.19/A i.e., item No.2 of the suit schedule property in the name of Smt.Ambamma and 1st defendant herein under registered sale deed dt: 26.6.2013. The defendants have been in possession of the suit schedule properties as their self-acquired properties from the date of purchase. The plaintiff has no right or what-so-ever in respect of suit schedule properties. They are neither the property of Smt.Ambamma nor ancestral properties nor the joint family properties of plaintiff and same has not been purchased out of joint family fund or from the funds of plaintiff. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and also plaintiff is having a house and site properties in and around Krishnarajapuram and some other properties in and around Manvi Taluk, Raichuru District. Plaintiff has suppressed these facts and has filed this suit. Even the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is not sufficient. Hence pray for dismissal of this suit with cost.

16. ISSUE NO.7: This issue is considered on priority before considering issue No.4 for proper adjudication of the controversy. Admittedly, plaintiff has filed this suit only in respect of two items of property. Plaintiff admits in her cross-examination that, her father i.e., 1st defendant herein has executed Gift Deed dt:13.6.2007 in respect of property bearing No.262/2, khata No.2788 and she has not included said property in this case. PW.1 asserts that, it is a property acquired by her through gift. Whereas, in her cross-examination at Page No.6, she states that, at the time of execution of said Gift Deed in her favour, she has given Rs.3,00,000/- to her parents. It is not the case of plaintiff that, apart from suit schedule property there existed some more properties it is exclusively belongs to either 1 st defendant or mother of plaintiff and they have gifted the same to her. It is further case of plaintiff that, in turn she has paid Rs.3,00,000/- to her parents though 1st defendant who is none other than the father of plaintiff. 1 St defendant got examined himself as DW.1 no where in his cross- examination it is suggested that, in respect of certain properties Gift Deed has been executed by 1 st defendant and his wife in favour of plaintiff by accepting Rs.3,00,000/-. PW.1 admits that, she has sold gifted sital property for a sale consideration of Rs.10,00,000/- and she has purchased another property for sale consideration of Rs.10,00,00/- at Bidarahalli and said Bidarahalli property is not included in this suit. In Page.7 of her cross-examination she admits that, she has been given two more properties, one landed property in Sy.No.87/1 at Anandagal and another sital property bearing khata No.288 measuring 30 x 40 ft., at Anandagal and those two properties according to plaintiff has been given to her by her mother. Even those properties are not included in this suit. PW.1 admits that, she is staying in an own house. She has not at all included properties acquired by her through her parents much prior to institution of this suit. On the other hand, she has not even disclosed about said Gift Deed and properties acquired by her and sale of one such property for Rs.10,00,000/- and purchasing one more property out of sale consideration amount at Bidarahalli. These oral testimony of PW.1 establishes that, plaintiff has not included all the properties in this suit. Suit for partial partition is not at all maintainable. Accordingly, I have answered this issue in the negative.

22. ISSUE NO.10: The learned counsel for plaintiff relied upon citation of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (2011(9 Supreme Court Cases, 451, Marabasappa (dead) by Lrs. And others Vs. Ningappa (dead) by Lrs. and others and asserted that, property in the name of plaintiff's mother i.e., in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule property is an absolute property of her mother and thereby plaintiff is having 1/4th share in respect of the suit schedule property under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act. Whereas, the plaintiff has not discharged her initial burden by producing sufficient oral and documentary evidence that no family arrangement has been made prior to the death of her mother in respect of properties in question and other family properties. Admittedly, plaintiff's father has executed Gift Deed in her favour in respect of one of the properties, which is not a part of this suit and plaintiff acquired two more properties through her mother. Though plaintiff asserts that, she has given Rs.3,00,000/- at the time of execution of Gift Deed in her favour, she has not produced any document to establish that, she possessed Rs.3,00,000/- as on the date of said Gift Deed in her favour. No where in the plaint she has disclosed about property acquired by her from her parents through Gift Deed and also that she has sold one such property for Rs.10,00,000/- and acquired one more property at Bidarahalli out of that sale consideration amount. Suit for partial partition is not at all maintainable. The circumstances discussed supra establishes that, plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hands. Further, no man shall be vexed twice for the same cause of action. 1St defendant being father of plaintiff, who got examined himself before this Court categorically mentioned that, since he has already given share to the plaintiff by gifting some of his properties, question of apportioning or giving share to the plaintiff for the 2nd time does not arise. Hence, in pursuance of Gift Deed executed in favour of plaintiff, which is as per Ex.D4 by 1st defendant herein and also admission of plaintiff that, she has sold the very same property in favour of some third person as per Ex.D6 establishes that, plaintiff has not approached this Court with clean hand and that apart, no man shall be vexed twice for the same cause of action. 2Nd and 3rd defendants have not questioned the Gift Deed Ex.D4 executed by 1st defendant in favour of plaintiff. PW.1 admits that, defendants No.2 and 3 have not objected for execution of Gift Deed in her favour. 1 St defendant categorically states that, plaintiff having acquired the properties under Gift Deed and also some more properties from them executed Relinquishment Deed as per Ex.D5. Inspite of production of Relinquishment Deed before this Court, plaintiff has not made any effort to get the document referred for expert opinion. The signatures Ex.D5(a) and D5(d) available in Ex.D5 being the disputed signature of plaintiff, is just in accordance with her admitted signature available in Ex.D4, which is a registered Gift Deed executed by 1 st defendant in favour of plaintiff. The person who seeks equity must do equity. Plaintiff not at all included the properties in this suit acquired by her through her parents. Infact she has sold one of the property in favour of one Narayanaswamy as per Ex.D6 and according to her version recorded on oath, she purchased some other properties out of said amount. Plaintiff also admits that, she is residing in her own house. By not including her own properties acquired from the family of defendants, plaintiff managed to file this suit. Above all, from the cross-examination of PW.1 it is crystal clear that, there is no cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit and the cause of action alleged in Para-7 and 9 of her plaint is nothing but an illusionary cause of action. These circumstances establishes that, plaintiff has not only approached this Court with unclean hand, but with unclean heart and brain. Such attitude required to be nipped at bud by imposing cost. Further, plaintiff's claim being after lapse of 3 years is also barred by law of limitation. Further, plaintiff has not produced any piece of paper to establish that, the properties in question are self-acquired property of her parents. There is no material to establish that, item No.1 and 2 of suit schedule properties are acquired by plaintiff's parents on their own or item No.1 of the suit schedule property was acquired by her mother as Streedhana. Under such circumstances, question of said property becoming absolute property of plaintiff's mother as per Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act as claimed by the plaintiff, appears vague and baseless. Considering the same and in view of my findings on above issues and also by observing the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the citation referred supra, I proceed to pass the following: