Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. In paragraph No.18, the Trial Court discussed that the plaintiffs have not included all the properties belonging to the family in the suit and also an observation is made that admittedly, in a suit for partition, the parties to the suit are bound to include all the properties belonging to the family members and seek for partition. But the Trial Court relies upon the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2, who have relied upon document Ex.D1 i.e., in respect of Site bearing No.299 of Mallathahalli Village situated in Bangalore pertaining to site measuring 30 x 40 which stands in the name of plaintiff No.1 Sri V.C. Ramachandraiah. The P.W.1 also admitted that the same was sold by him and defendants also relied upon documents Exs.D2 and D3, the sale deeds dated 09.03.2012 and 16.01.2013 which shows that the properties mentioned in Exs.D2 and D3 have been purchased by plaintiff No.6 Appajjigowda and comes to the conclusion that these three properties shown in Exs.D1 to D3 have not been included in the plaint schedule by the plaintiffs and P.W.1 also admitted the same. But, the fact is that Exs.D2 and D3 which came into existence subsequent to death of Thattaiah @ Thathappa i.e., Kartha of the family, but suit was filed in the year 2014 and as on the date of purchase of these properties by plaintiff No.6, Thattaiah @ Thathappa, who is the Kartha of the family was no more. The Trial Court also made an observation that Exs.D10 and D11 are 'Hakku Patras' standing in the name of plaintiff No.3 and late Narayana, the husband of defendant No.5 which have not been included in the schedule and those properties were granted in the year 1989. But, the plaintiffs though have claimed that there has been no partition of the suit schedule properties, no explanation is forthcoming, as to why the properties were granted separately in favour of plaintiff No.3 and Narayana and why those properties have not been included. But, the Trial Court comes to such a conclusion that those two properties are granted in year 1989 and hence, arrived at a conclusion that there was a partition effected among the children of Chaluvegowda can be believed to be true on perusal of Exs.D10 and D11 itself.

23. The Trial Court in paragraph No.19 also discussed with regard to admission on the part of P.W.1 in respect of Ex.D1 and also admission on the part of P.W.1 that defendant Nos.3 to 6 are cultivating the properties at Veerapura Village by growing ragi crops in the said properties and also taken note of Exs.D13 and D14 i.e., RTCs pertaining to Sy.No.22 measuring 30 guntas and Sy.No.32 measuring 1 acre which is standing in the name of plaintiff No.6 and Ex.D16 pertaining to Sy.No.60/1 measuring 38 guntas standing in the name of defendant No.2- Sowbhagyamma, wife of Thattaiah @ Thathappa. The RTCs shows that those properties are not included in the suit schedule properties. The defendants have also relied upon documents Exs.D19 to D21 issued by B.B.M.P. that plaintiff No.1-Y.C. Ramachandraiah has got sites at Bangalore for which he is paying taxes, but those properties are not included in the suit schedule. Even Exs.D24 to D26 tax paid receipts goes to show that the properties in the name of defendant No.7 which was gifted by Thattaiah @ Thathappa in favour of defendant No.7 as per gift deed dated 26.05.2010 i.e., Ex.D23 is also not included in the suit schedule. Even the house shown in the photographs Exs.D27 to D30 and the building shown in Exs.D31 and 32 belonging to the plaintiffs are not included in the schedule and having discussed the same, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that those properties are not included in the suit schedule.