The dispute arose out of a partition suit filed by i Smt.
The first defendant being a housewife had numberincome to purchase properties.
The plaint case is Sri.
He also had a leather business and had earning from running a taxi.
The genological table of the family is as under Ganganna Died in 1973 Gangamma Pet.
This suit was filed for partition claiming 1/3rd share in suit properties and also claiming separate possession by metes and bounds and for mesne profits and other incidental reliefs.
Defendants 6 to 14 are tenants in the suit properties.
Ganganna, the father in law of the plaintiff No.1, expired in 1973 leaving behind his wife, three daughters and two sons.
However, latter on relationship between the plaintiff No.1 and her husband and defendant No.1 became strained and the plaintiff No.1 and her husband had to leave the ancestral house.
Thus he was companytributing seven to eight thousand every month to the family and out of such income the suit properties were purchased.
The plaint case is that out of the properties those at item Nos.
Nagarathnamma wife of late G. Srinivas and ii by G. Hemlata who was a minor at the time of filing of the suit in 1992.
In the written statement filed by the first defendant, the plaint case was denied excepting the relationship between the parties.
Plaintiff was the only child of the plaintiff No.1, who was her mother and natural guardian and she represented the plaintiff No.2.
1 2 before this Court.
The subject matter of challenge before this Court is the judgment and order dated 1st December, 2006 passed by a Learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular First Appeal 617/2004 and in the cross objection 47/2006 filed under order 41, rule 22 against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.04 passed in Original Suit No.6169/92 by the XX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City.
The further plaint case is though some of the properties stand in the name of first defendant, they were bought benami in her name by the late Ganganna out of the income from agricultural lands and the income of the first plaintiffs husband who was working as an accountant in a private firm and drawing salary.
1 to 4 are the joint family properties.
GANGULY, J. Leave granted.
The plaintiffs are respondent Nos.
The first defendant in the suit is the mother in law of the plaintiff No.1 and the defendants 2, 3 4 are the daughters of the defendant No.1 and the defendant No.5 is the son of the defendant No.1.
