Schedule A companysisted of ancestral properties viz.,
The respondent number1 and 3 entered appearance by filing a written statement in which they denied the material allegations made in the plaint.
The Trial Court by the judgment and order dated 25th of January, 1996 dismissed the suit filed by the appellant on the ground that the parties were shown to be in possession of separate portion of the lands and having separate mess.
After Anjanappas death, the said lands were granted to the respondent No.
The respondent No.1 replied to the said numberice alleging that the moveable properties had already been partitioned on 23rd of April, 1962 and subsequently on 8th of May, 1996, the immoveable properties were also partitioned.
126/2006 whereby the High Court had affirmed the decision of the Trial Court dismissing the suit of the appellant for partition and separate possession along with mesne profits.
In the written statement, it was alleged by them that since partition had already been effected between respondent number1 and respondent number3 i.e. the father of the appellant and that they were separately enjoying the properties that had fallen to their respective shares.
Schedule B property was a vacant site.
Since the respondent No.
Schedule D properties were moveable properties.
The relevant facts leading to the filing of this appeal, as emerging from the case made out by the appellant in the plaint, are as under Late Anjanappa had two sons viz.,
Relying on the deposition of respondent No.2, it held that prior partition was established in view of the admission of respondent No.2 and as such the appellant companyld number demand partition.
Apart from these inam lands, Late Anjapppa also possessed ancestral and self acquired properties and after his demise, the respondent No.1 was acting as the manager of the family but the joint family of the appellant and the respondents possessed all these properties as joint family properties described in Plaint Schedule A to D of the plaint.
The respondent No.2 supported the plaint case and deposed that there was numberpartition of the properties by metes and bounds and that the respondent No.1 did number allow him to cultivate the lands belonging to the joint family but only a small portion of the same was allowed to be cultivated.
On 4th of July, 1988, the appellant issued a legal numberice to the respondent No.1 demanding partition of the joint family properties.
1/respondent No.1.
There was numberpartition effected by metes and bounds and the respondent No.1, taking advantage of the simplicity of respondent No.2 was managing all the properties and had also refused to effect partition.
Defendant No.2/respondent No.2 is the father of the plaintiff appellant.
1 with the companysent of the Tehsildar obtained on the ground that he was the eldest son of Anjanappa.
Ramakrishnappa and Venkataramachar, arrayed as defendant Nos.
Against this decision of the trial companyrt, the appellant filed an appeal before the High Court, which, however, was dismissed.
It was further alleged that after the death of Anjanappa, respondent No.1, became the archak of the said temple and he was looking after and cultivating the lands attached to the said temple i.e. C schedule properties of the plaint.
Defendant No.
Schedule C property companysisted of two agricultural lands, which were inam lands, granted subsequently in the name of respondent No.1.
3/respondent No.3 is the wife of Defendant No.
When Anjanappa was alive, he was serving as an Archak of Sri Anjaneya Swamy Temple situated in Belesivalaya and there were Devadaya inam lands attached to the temple, which were cultivated by him.
two agricultural lands measuring 4.11 acres and 1.34 acres respectively and five house sites.
1 refused to partition the immovable properties, the appellant was companystrained to file the suit for partition and separate possession of his share in Plaint A to D schedule properties along with mesne profits.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. Leave granted.
After companying into force of the Mysore Religious and Charitable Inams Abolition Act, 1955, in short the Act the respondent No.1 filed an application for grant of occupancy rights in respect of C schedule properties as the Archak of the temple which was companyferred on him.
1 and 2 in the suit.
This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and final order dated 24th of July, 2006 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in RFA No.
The reason behind staying under separate mess was stated to be the quarrel between the women in the family.
