MARI MADEGOWDA Vs. MARIMADAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the plaintiff is that he and 1st defendant are brothers. Other than the suit schedule property, other properties were also part of the joint family properties. The properties stand in the name of the father of plaintiff and 1st defendant. Certain other properties were purchased in the name of 1st defendant. There is no partition of the properties. Even though the father died, the properties continued to stand in the joint name of plaintiff and 1st defendant. The 1st defendant sold 4 guntas of land to the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant had no right to sell the same. Hence the instant suit was filed seeking for a declaration that the sale deed dated 02.02.1998 executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant is null and void and does not bind the share of the plaintiff and for permanent injunction to restrain the 2nd defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.

(2.) On service of summons, defendants entered appearance and filed a common written statement. That the suit property being joint family property, was denied. The relationship between the plaintiff and 1st defendant was admitted. That the sale executed by 1st defendant in favour of 2nd defendant is less than the legal entitlement of the 1st defendant. That notionally, 1st defendant would be entitled to ½ share in the joint family property viz., 11 ¾ guntas and 1st defendant has sold only 4 guntas. Therefore, even if the plaintiff's case were to be accepted, the sale deed would not be binding to the extent of plaintiff's share. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: