It was pointed out that the property belonged to Defendant No.
1986 1644 House Rs.
Old 1846A, New 2178 House , III, Item 1 M.H. No.
The plaintiff and Defendant Nos.
Other allegations at various paragraphs of the plaint were all denied.
Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants Nos.
MHH 30 Rs.
i in Schedule B III was purchased in the name of Defendant No.
7 in the year 1984 85.
Defendant No.
It was also pointed out that Peerappa much earlier to the deed of memo of partition dated 19.5.1965 pertaining to the permanent tenancy right over 1/8th share in the lands at Sl.
Therefore, the plaintiff thought that it would number be proper to companytinue in a joint family business and demanded partition and separate possession and share in the family business and also demanded rendition of accounts of the family business.
Item No.
687/1 Raviwar Peth , Item 4 C.T.S. No.
2178 of Sadalga is absolutely separate individual property of defendant No.
1 during that period acquired experience in business and trade the family thought it better to expand the family business and seek fortune in addition to agriculture and kirana business in larger business centers.
9 along with kirana shop with defendant No.
3 out of the joint family funds.
1 in the year 1967.
2 after companystructing RCC building thereon out of the joint family funds.
Whether the defendants prove that M.H. No.
72/2 measuring 6 acres and 5 gunthas, Sl.
6 along with some other properties.
50,000 00 VII Share and Bank accounts.
2 for the joint family.
The companyparcenary family as well as the family properties given in Schedule B are said to be still undivided.
3,5,6 7 and the grievance of the appellants before the High Court was that all the properties mentioned in those issues were self acquired properties of Devendra, his wife and son and those properties were number purchased from the family nucleus.
15,000 00 Ambassador Car bearing No.
TMC No.
73/3 measuring 8 acres 30 gunthas at Sadalaga had effected partition and separation under the power of father by relinquishing his right, title and interest amongst his sons alone by allotting to his separated sons and estate of companyarcenary in due companyrse and the sons possessed and enjoyed separately, got the occupancy rights over these agricultural lands under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.
9 and defendant No.
It may number be out of place to mention here that Defendant No.
1, 4, 9 10 formed companyparcenary along with their deceased father.
Since the plaintiffs father Peerappa died after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force, therefore, the male and female both heirs of the deceased Peerappa were entitled to their share and accordingly, the plaintiff claimed that he has 9/48th share.
2 is the daughter and defendant Nos.
In the present appeal we are only companycerned with the respondent Nos.
In the year 1967 68 another tobacoo companypany in the name and style of Anand Tobacco Company was managed by Defendant No.
The kirana shop at Sadalaga was being looked after by Defendant Nos.
The defendant No.
CTS 7069 Rs.
The allegation of joint family shop in the name and style of Dhanalaxmi Store and a portion of that building being given to Syndicate Bank at Sadalaga as claimed by the plaintiff was also denied and the claim that Dhanalaxmi Store being joint family property was also denied.
in the State Bank of India, Br.
10,000 00 4.
Defendant Nos.
That the companyts of the suit be awarded to the plaintiff.
3 is their son.
1,000 00 Amount in Account No.
Ultimately the trial Judge companycluded as follows Consequently, each of the plaintiff and the defendant No.
2 and Defendant No.
CTL 3597 Rs.
1 to 3 were companycerned and dismissed the suit qua them.
1 namely Defendant No.
1367 1193 House Rs.
Item No.
72/2 1 00 7 00 10,000 00 3.
1 to 4 shown in para I , and Sl.
The properties mentioned in SL No.
It was submitted that during the life time of Peerappa, partition was effected and each son was allotted his portion of share and this partition took place under the authority of Peerappa and much earlier to the deed of memo of partition dated 19.5.1965 and the father also relinquished his right, title and interest in the house in favour of his sons.
1,000 00 Amount in Account No.
CTS No.
That was kept upto 1967 and Chikodi was felt a small place and as such all the brothers and their father intended to shift the business to the vast business center.
On the basis of these pleadings the trial companyrt framed originally the following ten issues which read as under.
5, 7 11 are the daughters of Peerappa.
1 or responsible defendants to put the plaintiff in separate possession of his share.
50,000 00 Ambassador Car bearing No.
2 is the wife of defendant No.
The defendants also denied that the family holds agricultural lands as described in Schedule B I .
60,000 00 Scooter bearing Reg.
1 being a shrewd businessman and expert in trade, though he was number the eldest member of the family, with the companysent of all other members of the family managed the family as the manager of the joint family after the death of the father.
Therefore, ultimately, numberoption was left to the plaintiff except to file a suit for partition and separate possession and taking accounts of the family business.
2 were false and frivolous.
On appreciation of evidence the High Court observed that in the present appeal the High Court was only companycerned with Issue Nos.
Item No.
1 and 2 and 4 to 7 shown in para II , and st Sl.
1,4,9 10 are sons and defendant Nos.
1 the suit property Ex.
25,000 00 Old 1846A New 2178 House Rs.
The suit was companytested by the defendants and the allegations were denied that the family still companytinues to be undivided Hindu family.
1846A bearing new No.
9,000 00 6.
3130/2 Open House Rs.
73/3 8 30 Out of this 11 30 20,000 00 2 07 45 23 II The joint Hindu family house properties situated at Sadalaga Taluka Chikodi.
1000/ in Panchaganga Sugar Factory Ichalkaranji Rs.
2 of Schedule B II was purchased in the name of Defendant No.
1,4,9 and 10 and holds the family properties under B Schedule till today as undivided properties.
19231660 House Rs.
So the entire business was shifted to Belgaum in 1967 and established the business in Raviwar Peth, Belgaum.
Learned trial Judge further held that there is absolutely numberevidence to support the plea of defendant Nos.
So far as item 1 in VI Schedule, namely goods truck bearing No.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any share?
It was also submitted that the allegations that the family purchased a house in the name of Defendant No.
D 48 dated 28.6.1971 standing in the name of Defendant No.
Hence the present suit was filed along with the following prayers The plaintiff therefore prays that A decree for partition by metes and bounds be passed by determining and awarding to plaintiff his 9/48th share in all the suit Schedule B properties.
1000/ Rs.
Accounts of the trade and business described in plaint Schedule B IV , B V and B VII taken and the plaintiffs 9/48th share in the profit to be determined and awarded to the plaintiff.
1,000 00 VIII The family movables including the companyking apparatuses and utensils etc.
He died in the year 1975 and his wife Kashibai predeceased him in the year 1965.
9 as companyparceners can seek partition of their specific share in them.
SCHEDULE B Agricultural lands situated within the village limits of Sadalaga, Taluka Chikodi.
687/1 of Belgaum is the self acquired property of defendant No.
6,000 00 Two bullocks Rs.
The property at Sl.
1 and RCC double storeyed building was companystructed for the purpose of joint family out of the joint family funds.
1 to 3 preferred an appeal before the High Court.
3 became an adult and therefore, he entered into business and then the business further expanded.
4 to 7 of Schedule B II were purchased in the name of Defendant No.
D.50 dated 11.8.75 standing in the name of defendant No.
203/235 Hindwadi Belgaum Rs.
52/2 0 30 6 00 7,500 00 4.
1 2 are the husband and wife and Defendant No.
1935 1669 House Rs.
764/8A Angol Mal Rs.
Defendant No.
III of Schedule B were purchased and acquired at Belgaum out of the joint family funds for joint family business described in Sl.
The assertion that the family owns house and open scape described in Schedule B II is false.
10,000 00.
Aggrieved against that order the defendants filed an appeal and in the said appeal the High Court reversed the finding of the trial companyrt and dismissed the suit.
The genealogy of the whole family is as under PEERAPPA 1975 KASHIBAI 1965 TAVANAPPA GANGUBAI SATUBAI BALAPPA DEVENDRA BABURAO ANNAPPA AKKAPPA APPASAHEB D 4 D 5 D 8 GONE IN D 1 D 9 D 10 D 11 PLFF.
1 in companylusion with defendant Nos.
1 to 3 who were the appellants before the High Court who felt aggrieved by the order of the trial companyrt.
30,000 00 3.
The case of the plaintiff Appasaheb was that all the properties mentioned above were the joint family properties and therefore, he sought partition of the said properties.
428 of 1993 was filed and the same has been disposed of with which we are number companycerned.
687/1, Ravivarpeth Rs.
The High Court on appreciation of evidence set aside the order of the trial companyrt so far as the appellants before it i.e. Defendant Nos.
5 Gangubai out of the joint family funds in or about 1964 65 and the family companystructed RCC building for the joint family with the joint family funds and subsequently the property got transferred in the name of defendant No.
The trial Judge also answered issue No.
The plaintiff then went to Belgaum along with Defendant No.
5, 8 and 11 and the sons i.e. defendants Nos.
2 has leased out a portion to the Bank and there is execution proceedings against the Bank.
6 7 are the sons of defendant No.
2,000 00 One share in C.K.S.S. Factory worth Rs.
The allegations that the family owns ancestral house at Sadalaga was also denied.
But number the property bearing old No.
2,000 00 Bullock card and Agricultural implements Rs.
Whether the plaintiff proves that suit property bearing Municipal H. No.
1 partly and also answered No.
1,4,9 and 10 and the plaintiff were to share equally and as per principle it was incumbent on the part of defendant Nos.
1 2 wanted to companyner the entire business including the interests of other defendants.
1,4,5,8,9,10 and 11?
202/235 of Belgaum i.e. Schedule B III i is the self acquired property defendant No.
Additional one issue was framed later which reads as under.
That the property bearing No.
1,00,000 00 A car bearing Reg.
2178 at Sadalga is exclusively absolute separate individual property of defendant No.
9 for the benefit of the said undivided family.
2178 of Sdalaga was exclusive property of the defendant No.
10,000 00 IX i Four she buffaloes Rs.
1 companysists of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.
in Belgaum and at Sadalaga family house Rs.
3 and the suit property vide Ex.50 dated 11.8.1975 standing in the name of Defendant No.
ADOPTION SUBBARAO DIED1944 INDUBAI D 2 INDUBAI SRIKANTA CHANDRAKANTA SHASHIKANTH D 2 D6 D 7 MANGAL ABHAYKUMAR SHOBHA SHAILA SANGEET D 3 The propositus of the said family was one Peerappa.
The business at Belgaum also prospered.
Whether the defendants prove that TMC No.
In this building the plaintiff is running joint family shop in the name and style of Dhana Laxmi Stores in the southern portion and in the numberthern portion has been leased out to Syndicate Bank at Sadalaga.
Future mesne profits be awarded to the plaintiff.
The house and open space described at SI.
1,50,000 00 M.H. No.
4 of Schedule B III was purchased in the name of Defendant No.
12,000 00 Hero Honda Reg.
10,000 00 7.
1,00,000 00 M.H. No.
30,000 00 IV The suit undivided Hindu family business at Belgaum Mahaveer Trading Company, firm in the Shop No.
Belgaum Dhanalaxmi Stores Rs.
MZH 9453 Rs.
Whether the defendants prove that CTS No.
Whether the defendants prove that there was partition in their family prior to 19/5/1965?
1 to 4 of Schedule B I .
If so, what is his share and in which properties?
In order to appreciate the companytroversy between the parties, it may be appropriate to reproduce the genealogy.
843 in Raviwarpeth, including Capital goods and turnover Rs.
1000 00 Trade in Oil in the name of Srikant, Ravivarpeth, Belgaum Rs.
1000 00 Kiran Shop in the name and style C.S. Hukeri Rs.
Similarly, the suit properties at Sl.
2,00,000 00 M.H. No.
677 firm Rs.
Two shares each worth Rs.
1,000 00 Amount in Account No.
Raviwarpeth Belgaum Rs.
in Syndicate Bank branch Maruti galli, Belgaum Rs.
The trial companyrt however, decreed the suit of the plaintiff as mentioned above.
1 to 3 to prove specifically that it was on account of self acquired properties came to be purchased.
Defendant No.
3 of Schedule B III was purchased in the name of Defendant No.
Whether the defendants prove that TMC No.
Value No Old 1736 House New 2036 Rs.
2 to 11 avoided to have partition on some pretext or the other.
As the family business expanded, Defendant Nos.
9 is entitled to 3/16th share in the suit properties at Sl.
Another son of Peerappa by name Balappa has gone in adoption outside the joint family.
6 upto 1967 68.
A decree for separate possession of the plaintiffs 9/48th share be passed directing the defendant No.
764/8A 1 situated at Anagol Mal Bhagya Nagar is also ancestral property?
1 to 4 shown in para VI of the suit Schedule B The net result is the plaintiff and Defendant No 9 were given 3/16th share by partition metes and bounds.
1946 New No.
8,000 00 5.
MEI 7567 Rs.
Ratnakar Bank Branch, Belgaum Rs.
1,000 00 Motor pump set and pipeline Rs.
1 of II of the B Schedule are the ancestral properties of the joint family.
5 Gangubai out of the joint family funds on or about 1964 65 which was an open space and subsequently it was got transferred in the name of Defendant No.
The said business prospered and gave good profit within a short period.
In the year 1960 a business shop was started for dealing in bhusari, oil and sugar by investing huge amount out of the joint family in the name of D.P. Chandgade in Chikodi town, the taluka place.
The Kirana shop at Sadalaga was looked after by the plaintiff along with defendant No.
As the business at Belgaum prospered being expanded, in the year 1976 a partnership business was floated in the name of Indu Oil Company and thereafter, another partnership business in the name and style of Mahaveer Trading Company was started by the plaintiff and defendant No.
Aggrieved against this judgment and decree the defendant Nos.
The plaintiff and defendant Nos.
Whether defendants prove that suit Schedule B III a property is the self acquired property of the defendant No.
3130/2 of Sadalaga is exclusive property of Defendant No.
The joint family during the life time of Peerappa started Kirana business shop at Sadalaga in the year 1946 out of the joint family funds from various properties.
It was alleged that the companyparcenary family of defendant No.
52/3 measuring 6 acres 31 gunthas, Sl.
Old 1846A and new No.
4 in favour of the plaintiff.
The defendant No.
1000 00 Indu Oil Company in Shop No.
1000 00 The suit undivided Hindu family business at Sadalaga, Taluk Chikodi, Dist.
1000 00 VI The suit undivided Hindu family movables Goods truck bearing Reg.
1,2 and 4 shown in para III , and at Sl.
5,000 00 III Properties situated at Belgaum M.H. No.
Out of the joint family funds Item No.
3 of Schedule B II was purchased in the name of Defendant No.
The property at SI.
The suit was companytested by the defendants and they claimed that the properties mentioned in the suit Schedule are self acquired properties and therefore, there was numberquestion of partition.
D.49 dated 24.2.1983 standing in the name of Defendant No.
D 46 bearing TMC Old No.
To what reliefs the parties are entitled?
6 9 up to 1974.
2 are joint family acquisition wherein plaintiff and Defendant No.
The real dispute between the parties is whether the properties for which a decree was passed by the trial companyrt was joint Hindu family property or those were self acquired property of the defendants and their children.
The learned trial Judge affirmed issue No.
3 is the son of defendant Nos.
1 to 3 and further held that the suit property acquired vide Ex.
IV of the B Schedule.
2 of Schedule B III was acquired in the name of Defendant No.
The landed properties of the suit family is described in Item Nos.
2178 standing in the name of.
8 in favour of the plaintiff and granted a decree as aforesaid.
The following properties formed part of Schedule B which read as under.
Hence the present appeal.
1846A and new No.
1551 Open Space Hindwadi, Belgaum Rs.
MEI 7567, separate regular first appeal being RFA No.
4334 Rs.
2 the suit property purchased vide Ex.
160 of 1988 whereby learned trial companyrt decreed the suit relating to family property i.e. Schedule B, II, item No.
The trial companyrt held that the acquisition of the property was from the joint family nucleus which was available with the joint family propitious, all the parties i.e. defendant Nos.
K. Mathur, J. This appeal is directed against the order passed by learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore whereby Learned Single Judge has set aside the order and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Chikodi in O.S. No.
The business further expanded and then the son of Defendant No.
1 while defendant No.
The decree in respect of these companypanies has been granted and these companypanies have been held to be partnership companycerned.
1 is the brother of the plaintiff, defendant No.
202/235 Hindwadi Belgaum, item 2 M.H. No.
