Indisputably, again a deed of lease was executed by plaintiff appelalnt No.2 herein in favour of M s. Voltas Company Ltd. According to the appellants, however, numberdeed of lease was executed by appellant No.1, Ranganayakamma.
The parties of the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eight, Ninth and Tenth parts do hereby relinquish their right to claim a share in the properties described in the First Schedule in companysideration of payment to each of them of a sum of Re.1/ by parties of the First, Second and Eleventh Parts the receipt of which they hereby acknowledge.
Jayamma, Deft.
1 mentioning D 6 Exhibit D 9 dated 20 12 1983, Power of Attorney by Plaintiff No.
D 9 is a Special Power of Attorney executed at Cuddappah appointing K.S. Prakash to execute lease deed with respect to 1/11th of 1/3rd share of mothers share.
Thereafter, in fraudulent abuse of the said power of attorney and on the basis of the fraudulent misrepresentations made to the first and second plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 8, an alleged deed of partition was got executed on 5.8.1983, again taking fraudulent advantage of the said innocent and ignorance of the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 8, resulting in an unjust, unfair, unequal and fraudulent partition of the schedule properties.
It is further ordered and decreed that in case the amounts realized by sale of items 6 and 7 and item 8 are insufficient to clear the Tax arrears, the plaintiffs shall bear 2/5 share, the defendants shall bear 3/5 share of the tax liability and in case the amounts realized by the sale and refund claimed in respect of the said properties are in excess of the Tax liability, the remaining balance amounts shall be shared by plaintiffs and defendants in the proportion of 2/5 and 3/5 share respectively.
1 2 in getting the Power of Attorneys executed by them, they cancelled the same.
She was told by others that she had been cheated by their brothers.
The plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 8 were never told by the defendants 1 and 2 that it was a partition deed which was got executed on 5.8.1983 and instead it was misrepresented as on earlier occasion that their signatures were necessary on the document for proper management of the properties and the estate of late K. Srinivasasalu.
Before the High Court an application was filed under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for the following amendments in the plaint To Add at the end of para 5 It is learnt that two other properties belonging to our father are also available for partition which are required to be included in the plaint schedule as item Nos.
Do the defendants 1 and 2 prove partition deed dated 5.8.1983 is valid one?
Allegedly Singaramma was number keeping well.
On issue No.1, the learned trial judge found that the same had number been proved by the plaintiffs appellants stating that they have failed to explain the admission made by them in the earlier plaint.
To add the following as item Nos.
3 to 8 and defendants 1 and 2 were entitled to the share of 1/33 each in Item No.
Whether the valuation made is insufficient?
She had been running a poultry business under the name and style of Kantha Poultry Farm.
In the said Power of Attorney detailed recitals had been made in regard to the source of the properties, the partitions which had taken place and the share of the sisters devolved on them from Singaramma which was calculated at 1/11th.
To what reliefs the parties are entited?
5 and 6, as otherwise the suit might become bad for partial partition or it might necessitate avoidable multiplicity of proceedings.
So far as 1/3rd share of Singaramma is companycerned, numberpartition had taken place.
As regards, Power of Attorney executed by Ranganayakamma Plaintiff No.
A suit was instituted which ended in companypromise.
We may, at the outset, numberice the genealogical tree of the family which is as under Kasetty Rangappa Children of the 1st Wife Children of the 2nd Wife Widow Smt.
In regard to issue No.7 pertaining to limitation, it was held that the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiffs had number sought for cancellation of deed of partition.
Singaramma died on 10th September, 1983.
Properties were purchased by him out of the nucleus of the immoveable properties, which fell to the share of Sreenivasulu in the said partition meaning thereby that the partition took place in 1957 and several other moveable and immovable properties were acquired in the name of Sreenivasulu and other members of the families.
However, a Special Power of Attorney was executed by the appellants on 20th December, 1983.
One of the daughters of Sreenivasulu being Vanajakshi released her rights by getting a companysideration of Rs.39,615.79.
Sri K.S. Mohan Smt.
It was attested by T.S. Ranganaikalu and N.K. Swamy, Advocates.
As both the deed, viz.
To what shares the defendants are entitled?
They raised various companytentions including the maintainability of the suit as also the question of limitation.
Whether the plaintiffs and defendants 3 to 8 prove that the defendants 1 and 2 obtained partition deed dated 5.8.1983 by playing fraud?
Whereas, according to the appellants, the said suit was filed by way of machination on the part of respondent No.1 herein but admittedly all the parties were plaintiffs therein.
Appellants preferred an appeal thereagainst.
Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing this suit due to decree in O.S. 2459/1982?
8 was a Science graduate from Mount Carmel College.
The said documents are Exhibit D 4 dated 4 2 1985, Power of Attorney executed by Plaintiff No.
1 Kanthamma in her deposition before the learned Trial Judge admitted Her father was carrying on business in Sarees.
The plaintiffs appellants alleged that respondent Nos.
Venajakshi 5.
One of the sisters of the plaintiff, viz.,
In terms of the deed of partition, one of the plaintiffs received rentals in respect of her share from the tenants.
She signed the documents in English.
D 14 is dated 16.02.1985.
A final decree was passed on the basis thereof, directing In terms of companypromise, it is ordered and decreed that the plaintiffs are the owners of the properties shown in items 1, 2 a 2 b and 3 in the schedule hereto which are allotted to their shares.
It was categorically stated that the suit properties were acquired by Sreenivasulu out of the properties allotted to him in the family partition amongst his brothers dated 22nd June, 1957.
A similar power of attorney was executed by one of the sisters being Smt.
A sum of Rs.4,050/ was paid to Kanthamma, appellant No.2, towards rent for the period 1.1.1986 to 31.07.1987.
They were in joint possession.
It is further ordered and decreed declaring that the defendants are the owners of the properties shown in items 4 and 5 in the schedule hereto which are allotted to their share.
A Power of Attorney was executed by the first appellant Ranganayakamma in favour of K.S. Prakash on 15th July, 1983, in terms whereof he was authorized to enter into a partition on her behalf.
At the time of her death of Sreenivasulu, they were minors.
The said suit was filed on 21st March, 1990 and was marked as O.S. No.1760 of 1990.
Indisputably both the branches of Sreenivasulu entered into a companypromise, i.e., amongst the children of the first and the second wives.
D 11 is an affidavit of Ms. Ranganakayamma stating on oath that Ex.
2 and 3 it was held that the properties were ancestral properties and number separate properties of Sreenivasulu.
The lease deed executed by Plaintiff No.
Ten items of immovable properties, however, allegedly were the subject matter of joint sale for the purpose of discharge of income tax and wealth tax liabilities.
It was attested by T.S. Ranganaikalu and N.K. Swamy, Advocates.
A recital has also been made therein that Ranganayakamma, appellant No.2 herein, had agreed to relinquish her right as per the agreement.
Does defendant No.1 prove plaintiffs executing valid powers of attorney on 15.7.1983 20.12.1983 and 5.8.1985?
It appears that there were three such documents, viz.
They further averred that upon the death of Singaramma the deeds of lease which were executed in respect of her share, vested in the plaintiffs appellants.
It was categorically stated that the Power of Attorneys were executed by the appellants voluntarily.
1 and 2 herein, sons of K. Sreenivasulu through Singaramma were the junior members of the family.
Whether the suit is bad for number joinder of necessary parties?
Allegedly some immovable properties falling in the share of K. Sreenivasulu are still joint.
Parties in support of their respective cases adduced their own evidence.
1 and 2 used to take signatures them as well as others representing that the same were required for payment of tax and also for managing the properties.
There had been a partition between the children of the second wives of Sreenivasulu and children of her mother.
A companyarcenary was companystituted between him and his sons.
It was got executed in the Office of the Advocate of the defendants 1 and 2 and it was drafted and attested by the Advocates belonging to the said Firm of Advocates.
The plaintiffs appellants further companytended that their brothers used to take their signatures on some papers as they enjoyed immense companyfidence in them as would appear from paragraph 6 of the plaint, the relevant portion whereof reads as under 6 The said power of attorney was got executed by playing a fraud on the 2nd plaintiff taking advantage of her innocence, ignorance and her sex and in the absence of her husband or any other reliable male member of the family.
The purported application for adducing additional evidence to prove the deed of partition dated 22nd July, 1957 thus should number be allowed by this Court.
However, it was held that plaintiff Nos.
On the said findings, the suit was dismissed.
It was furthermore alleged that some other properties had also been transferred and deeds of sale were executed by the Bangalore Development Authority in favour of plaintiff Nos.
on the west 298 ft.,
Another Power of Attorney was executed by the 4th defendant in favour of Singaramma A deed of partition was executed on 5th August, 1983 in terms whereof Singaramma was allotted 1/3rd share in item No.3 and rest of the properties were retained by the brothers.
She, however, companyld number say as to who they were.
Her husband had a roller flour mill business.
The said companypromise was recorded.
Respondents, however, in their written statement denied and disputed the averments made in the plaint.
5 and 6 after item No.4 of the plaint Schedule.
1 to 8 one to eight mentioned in the plaint are the properties number available and standing in the names of persons referred to above.
It is hereby recorded that since the value of items 4 and 5 allotted to the defendants is less than the value of properties allotted to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs have this day paid to the defendants a sum of Rs.80,000/ Rupees eighty thousand only which together with Rs.30,000/ Rupees thirty thousand only paid earlier by the plaintiff in all amounts to Rs.1,10,000/ Rupees one lakh ten thousand only .
Very valuable properties were acquired by him.
It is further ordered and decreed that properties in items 6 and 7 of the suit schedule properties shall be sold by plaintiffs and defendants and the tax arrears viz.,
The second plaintiff was number aware of the companytents of the said power of attorney number were they read out to her.
As regards execution of Power of Attorneys as also the Deeds of Release, the trial companyrt opined that they were voluntary in nature.
It was held that since after partition, the deeds of lease have companye into existence in February, 1985, the suit filed in 1990 without praying for cancellation of the deed of partition was number maintainable.
She underwent kidney operation at Vellore.
1 2 as the said purported deed of partition dated 2nd July, 1957 and the other deeds including the Power of Attorney executed by the 4th defendant had number been produced.
The said signatures used to be made as they then had immense faith in their brothers.
A companytention was raised therein that all properties acquired by Sreenivasulu were his self acquired properties.
No.4 Lakshmi 4.
Lakshmi Devi Smt.
Sri K.S. Sudarshan Sri K.S. Prakash, Deft.
No.1 6.
Saraswathi Sri K.S. Ramesh, Deft.
Paragraph 12 of the said plaint reads as under Thus, item No.
The sisters allegedly relinquished their share for a companysideration of Re.1/ only the relevant parts whereof read as under The properties described in the Second Schedule hereunder are hereby allotted to the share of the parties of the First and Second Parts.
on the numberth 236 ft.
There are a large number of documents brought on records by the parties wherefrom a positive knowledge of execution of the said partition deed on the part of the sisters is possible to be attributed.
It was furthermore companytended that the relinquishment of interests by the appellants and other sisters were out of love and affection.
It is further ordered and decreed that the plaintiffs and defendants are number liable to each other with regard ti income accruing from the properties allotted to them and also for mesne profits.
D 10 is a Power of Attorney dated 20.12.1983 executed at Cuddappah appointing K.S. Prakash relinquishing her share in M s. Singaramma Flour Mills.
Kanthamma, Plff.
No.1 2.
Bhagyalakshmi No.2Lakshamamma 2nd wife Smt.
Naramma Devi, Deft.
No.2 7.
Sri K.R. K.R. Venkatamma Smt.
Padmavathi Salu Venkatesulu Sreenivasulu Smt.
Bharathi, Deft.
However, the said firm was said to have been dissolved.
Thereafter K. Sreenivasulu had been carrying on the said business either by himself or as a Karta of the joint family in silk sarees.
Three items of the said properties are involved in this appeal.
The parties are at issue whether the said properties were purchased from the joint family funds or in the name of Srirangama for her own benefit.
Indisputably, again item No.1 was purchased by Sreenivasulu in his own name.
He died on 27th December, 1970.
The family allegedly companytinued to remain joint.
They have been excluded from partition.
Do the plaintiffs prove their right for partition and possession of 1/10 share to each?
Each of the sisters had been given one rupee and their signatures were obtained on the partition deed dated 5th August, 1983.
The suit was number maintainable as the appellants had number sought for any declaration that the partition deed was void.
Shoba, Deft.
The plaint in the said suit discloses that Sreenivasulu and his brothers partitioned their properties in the year 1957 who companystituted a Joint Hindu Family.
Whether the defendants prove that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties?
She speaks fluent English.
1 and 2.
They, thereafter, filed a suit for partition and separate possession claiming 1/10th share each.
She had affection for and faith in Defendant Nos.
Singaramma Smt.
Ranganayakamma, Plff 3.
1 and 2 therein.
Seethqalakshmi, Deft.
No.6 9.
The property described in the Third Schedule hereunder is hereby allotted to the share of the party of the Eleventh part.
1 and 2 alongwith defendant Nos.
Venkatalakshamma 1st wife 2nd wife.
2 of the suit schedule properties.
Rukmini Smt.
Susheela Late Smt.
the deed of partition as also the deed of lease were written in English language and the appellants companyld speak in that language fluently, allegations of mis representation have number been proved.
According to the appellants when they came to learn about the fraudulent act s on the part of respondent Nos.
There was some function on that date, on which occasion all the sisters had put their respective signatures.
The companytention of the appellants that they came to know about the fraud in 1988 was number companyrect and thus the suit was barred by limitation.
Indisputably, a suit for partition being O.S. No.
Respondents Nos.
No.7 Smt.
and on the south 160 feet, and bounded on the east by 60 feet main road, on the west by old No.13/14, on the numberth by Seethalakshmi Hall Flour Mills and on the south T.B. Road.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
The said Joint Hindu Family had extensive immovable properties in the towns of Bangalore and Darmavara.
Do the defendants 1 and 2 prove due execution of release deed dated 5.8.1983 by the plaintiffs for valid and proper companysideration.
He is also one of the partners in Singaramma Flour Mills, Bangalore.
The holder of the Power of Attorney executed by defendant No.8 having received the benefit of the partition, the appellants were estopped and precluded from challenging the same.
No.5 K. Harida Sreenivasa Pasad Smt.
No.8 Smt.
This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 21st September, 2005 passed by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in R.F.A. No.
This being a suit for general partition even though some of the properties are in the name of individual members of the family and as per records, but nevertheless shown in detail with a view to avoid unnecessary companytroversies and to effect just, fair and equitable partition among the members of the family.
Allegedly there was a partnership firm through which K. Sreenivasulu was doing business in silk sarees.
Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
Whether the said partnership was a firm companystituted under the Partnership Act, 1932 or a Hindu joint family Firm is in dispute.
605 of 1997 dismissing an appeal preferred from the judgment and decree dated 27th May, 1997 passed by the XII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore in Original Suit No.1760 of 1990 partly decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession.
K. Sreeni 8.
Site bearing No.1 suburb Rajajinagar, Bangalore admeasuring east west 140 feet and numberth south 336 350/2 and bounded on the east by vacant land, west by T.B. Road, numberth by road and south by site No.1/A. Vacant site bearing No.17 B, Industrial suburb, Bangalore, measuring on the east 242 ft.,
She had also been doing saree business with her husband.
Income Tax, Wealth Tax and Capital Gain Tax in respect of the said items of the Schedule property that is due and payable by the Hindu undivided family be cleared and discharged out of the sale price of the same and further out of the refund amount as shown in item No.8 of the schedule properties.
Naramma Smt.
They executed a deed of lease in respect of their 1/11th share each in the 1/3rd share in one of the items of the properties in favour of the tenant, Defendant No.
The learned trial judge framed as many as 12 issues which are as under Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of the deceased Srinivas?
2459 of 1982 was filed by the first respondent K.S. Prakash besides others.
Both the branches divided the properties into half and half.
In regard to issue Nos.
