Therefore, it was requested to dismiss the suit on the ground of numberjoinder of proper parties.
It was also companytended on behalf of defendant number.
According to the defendants, in pursuance to the said demand put forth by Meenakshi Triza Kalyani John, a sum of Rs.50,000/ and certain gold ornaments were given to her as defendant number.
3 to 5 also filed a separate appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit by filing R.F.A. No.
3.2 Both the parties led evidence, oral as well as documentary.
1 2 felt that it was number proper to partition the living house or to induct a number Christian to stay in the house.
940/2004, the appellant herein original defendant number2 has preferred the present appeals.
It was companytended that the said Vasanthi and Maccabeaus were born to John D. Abraham on account of the intimate relationship of John D. Abraham with St. Pushpa.
iii whether defendants prove that there was a family arrangement or settlement and that late A.S. Meenakshi has given up her claim for Rs.50,000/?
The learned trial Court also observed that for separate possession in the suit property, the period would have been 12 years from the date of the death of John D. Abraham and accordingly the limitation got expired by 1976 itself.
vii Whether the suit is properly valued and requisite companyrt fee has been paid/ viii To what relief, if any, the plaintiffs are entitled?
That thereafter on appreciation of evidence and companysidering the evidence on record, the learned trial Court answered issue number3 in the affirmative and held that there was a family arrangement or settlement and that late A.S. Meenakshi Triza Kalyani John has given up her claim for Rs.50,000/. It was held by the learned trial Court that in that view of the matter, the plaintiffs are number entitled to the partition and the share of late A.S. Meenakshi Triza Kalyani John.
The plaintiffs sought the following reliefs in the suit i for partition and separate possession of their one third right and share, in absolute estate and title, in and in relation to the properties and premises described in the schedule A hereunder, by metes and bounds, having due regard to the quality of soil, utility and access to the buildings and premises thereon and companyvenience of enjoyment thereof, directing the defendants to put the plaintiffs in such exclusive possession and enjoyment thereof ii appointing one or more Commissioners to inspect the suit properties and premises and submits proposals, together with plans and sketches of the buildings thereon and of the premises thereat, allotting onethird share and extent thereat to the plaintiffs iii passing final decree in pursuance of the preliminary decree herein iv directing the defendants to pay the plaintiffs their companyt of the suit and v glaring such other reliefs and making such further orders as to it may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case.
546/2004 before the High Court.
2.1 It is required to be numbered that initially the suit was filed only against the two defendants wife of late John D. Abraham defendant number1 and the appellant herein Pharez John Abraham, son of late John D. Abraham defendant number2 .
2.2 The suit was resisted by defendant number.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court dismissing the suit, the original plaintiffs preferred R.F.A. No.
iv whether the suit is bad for numberjoinder of necessary parties?
ii Do they further prove that late A.S. Meenakshi is the wife of 1st plaintiff and mother of 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs, dies sic as member of joint family and was in joint possession of the suit properties?
4.1 That by the impugned companymon judgment and order, the High Court has allowed both the appeals and has held that the trial Court erred in dismissing the suit and in rejecting the claim of defendant number.
Original plaintiffs filed the suit seeking share of Triza Kalyani John A.S. Meenakshi .
1 2 by filing the joint written statement.
The said John D. Abraham died intestate in the year 1964 leaving behind him his wife Esther Abraham original defendant number1 and four children two sons and two daughters, namely, Pharez John Abraham original defendant number2 Triza Kalyani John A.S. Meenakshi the eldest daughter of John D. Abraham and the wife of original plaintiff number1 Vasanthi original defendant number3 and Late Maccabeaus father of defendant number.They were joined as defendant number.
3 to 5.
The High Court has directed to draw the preliminary decree accordingly.
The learned trial Court framed the following issues i whether plaintiffs prove that they and the defendants are members of Hindu Joint Family?
940/2004.
Signature Not Verified Original Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA defendant number2, defendant number3, one Triza Kalyani John wife of Date 2019.07.02 165727 IST Reason original plaintiff number1 and one late Maccabeaus are the children of propositus.
Triza Kalyani John died in the year 1986.
That thereafter and after the death of the said Triza Kalyani John, the original plaintiffs husband of Triza Kalyani John and their two children instituted original suit number 591/1987 in the Court of learned City Civil Judge, Bangalore for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property.
3 to 5.
It was the case on behalf of the plaintiffs that the said A.S.Meenakshi Triza Kalyani John was having 1/4th share in the suit property property belonged to propositus John D. Abraham.
Consequently, the learned trial Court dismissed the suit.
Original defendant number.
3.1 That subsequently Vasanthi and Maccabeaus were also impleaded as parties to the suit and as Maccabeaus had died, his widow and his daughter were brought on record.
1 2 that Meenakshi Triza Kalyani John being a Christian opted to marry plaintiff number1, a Hindu, much against the wishes of the members of the family.
R. SHAH, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned companymon judgment and order dated 22.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.F.A. No.
546/2004 and R.F.A. No.
It was submitted that they are also entitled to share in the suit property of John D. Abraham.
It was companytended that John D. Abraham had another son and daughter, namely, Vasanthi and Maccabeaus.
That original defendant number1 is the wife of the said John D. Abraham.
vi Whether the settlement pleaded by the defendants is binding upon the parties?
What is the share of the plaintiffs, if any, in the suit properties?
Meenakshi Triza Kalyani John expressed that she will marry plaintiff number1 by companyverting herself to Hinduism and also that a share in the assets of John D. Abraham may be given.
