2 and 14 managed the family lands, arranged to pay cist for them and manipulated entries in the revenue record purporting to show that Neelamma had paid the said cist as pattadar.
Broadly stated, that is the nature of the evidence on which the plea of blending rests.
The first argument was rejected by the High Court, but the second was upheld.
This deed was attested by their father Kari Ramappa.
5 of 1940.
In the opinion of the trial companyrt respondent 1 through his agents whom he examined as witnesses in the suit D. Ws.
To the plaint were attached the schedules describing the several items of property.
On these pleadings the learned District Judge, who tried the suit, framed eight issues two of these related to the question regarding the status of the family.
This suit ended in a companypromise decree, and it is companymon ground that the properties in Schedule C came to the share of respondent 1 by this companypromise decree.
The trial companyrt was satisfied that the said recital had been fraudulently made and the document had number been read to Neelamma at all.
He found that the plea of partition made by respondent 1 was number proved, and accordingly he declared that the appellants were entitled to half share in the properties of the family and passed a preliminary decree for partition.
In this way he pleaded separate title to all the properties in suit.
A 11 .
It is companymon ground that the properties at Jonnagiri had been obtained by Channamma by succession from her father and were held by her as a limited owner.
This property has been obtained by respondent 1 as a result of the decree passed in S. No.
When the question of status of the family was reagitated before the High Court it felt numberhesitation in companyfirming the companyclusions of the trial companyrt in regard to the general companyduct of respondent 1, the documents brought into existence by him, and the unfair manner in which he had dealt with the appellants mother.
5 of 1940 respondents 2 and 1 claimed a declaration against the two widows of Virupakshappa, their daughter and certain alienees.
Subsequently, on July 5, 1923, some additional properties belonging to Channamma were charged to the said maintenance Ex.
The said decree was challenged by respondent 1 by his appeal before the Madras High Court.
He urged that the trial companyrts finding as to the status of the family was erroneous, and he pleaded that in any case the appellants were number entitled to any share in the properties at Jonnagiri, items 4 to 61, as well as the properties acquired under Ex.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 6, 1953, of the Madras High Court in A. S. Appeal No.
B 10 which companytained the recital that the house there described had fallen to the share of Neelammas husband at a prior partition.
The appellants companytend that respondent 1 had joined respondent 2 in the said suit as representing their undivided family and the properties acquired by him under the companypromise decree passed in the said suit has been allotted to him as representing the whole of the family.
According to the learned judge, the appellants were entitled to their half share in the items of property described in Schedule A excluding items 63, 64, 65, 86 and 151 and items in paragraph 14 d of the written statement of respondent 1 as well as items of property described in Schedules B and C. This decree was passed on November 22, 1948.
It also appears that pattas in respect of the same lands belonging to Channamma were obtained in the names of the members of the family and companysequently, the said pattas were shown in the relevant revenue papers.
This claim was resisted by respondent 1 principally on the ground that in 1929 Ramappa, the father of respondent 1 and the grandfather of the appellants had effected a partition of the joint family properties between respondent 1 and his elder brother Bandappa who is the appellants father.
Thus the dispute between the parties has to be companysidered on the basis that until the date of the institution of the suit the family was an undivided Hindu family with respondent I as its manager.
The property originally belonged to Virupakshappa, and in O. S. No.
That is how, according to respondent 1, the appellants claim for partition was untenable.
In the result the decree passed by the trial companyrt was companyfirmed except in regard to the said two categories of properties.
Vimanatha Sastri and B. K. B.Naidu, for respondent No.
The question which has been argued before us in respect of these properties is whether or number the appellants are entitled to a share in these properties.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The transfer of patta in 1937 on which respondent 1 relied was entirely his work and the appellants mother Neelamma had number been companysulted and had given numberconsent to it.
It is this appellate decree which is challenged before us by the learned Attorney General on behalf of the appellants.
263 of 1956.
Neelamma was an illiterate and Gosha woman and it appeared that a certain amount of companyrcion had been practised on her as well as deception in persuading her to execute the original of Ex.
The demeanour of respondent 1 in the witness box was also criticised by the trial judge when he observed that he did number impress the trial judge as a truthful witness, and in his opinion he was a powerful and influential man in the village who was able to do a number of things as he wished and so it was number surprising that he was able to get a number of witnesses to speak to separate enjoyment of a few items of land by the appellants mother.
February 9.
For the reasons set out by the High Court in its judgment and also for the various reasons put forward by the learned District Judge in his exhaustive judgment the High Court agreed with the learned judge that the alleged partition of 1929 had number been proved.
Their case was that respondent 1 who has been the manager of the family for many years has been trying to deprive them of their legitimate share in the property and refused their request for partition, and so they had to file the present suit.
According to them, in the property of the family they and respondent 1 were entitled to half share each.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR,J. This appeal has been brought to this Court with a certificate granted by the Madras High Court and it arises from a suit filed by the appellants Mallesappa and Chenna Basappa against their uncle Mallappa, respondent 1 and granduncle Honnappa, respondent 2, for partition.
The High Court thought that the evidence of Neelamma was also companysistent with the story set up by respondent 1.
He had three sons, Kari Ramappa who died in 1933, Virupakshappa who died long ago and Honnappa, respondent 2.
B. K. Pillai, for respondent No.
Kari Ramappa had four sons Guru shantappa died 1913 , Bandappa died 1931 , Mallappa respondent 1 and Veerabhadrappa died 1927 .
C. Setalvad, Attorney General of India and Naunit Lal, for the appellants.
7 of 1949.
According to the plaint, the family of the appellants and respondent 1 was an undivided Hindu family until the date of the suit, and respondent 1 was its manager.
They were born in 1926 and 1929 respectively.
The ancestor of the family was Desai Mallappa.
The trial companyrt relied on some transactions adduced by the appellants and upheld the plea that Channammas properties had become joint family properties in which the appellants had a half share.
