N.KUMAR,J. - (1.) THIS is plaintiffs appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court which has dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession on the ground that the suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties.
(2.) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff No. 1 is the minor daughter of 2nd plaintiff and late P.M. Gurumurthy. One Kanthaiah is the propositus. He has a son by name P.K. Marulasiddaiah. His wife is Rudramma. They had 5 daughters by name Girijamnia, Kalavethi, Charuiramma, Nagarathnamma and Usha and a son by name Gurumurthy. Sri P.K. Manilasiddaiah had got ancestral property at Pattanagere Village, Kadur Taluk and purchased several other properties and registered the same in the name of his wife i.e., 1st defendant Rudramma. Marulasiddaiah was working as a Village Secretary. After retirement, he died. Plaintiff are the legal heirs of P.M. Gurumurthy. During the life time of P.K. Marulasiddaiah, the marriage of all the daughters took place except the last daughter Usha and the son Gurumurthy. Both of them were married on the same date. To meet the expenses of the said marriage, he had sold the properties at Pattanagere Village in Kadur Taluk to settle all the accounts. During the year 1999, there was a settlement among the members of the family regarding gold jewels and other monetary benefits. Accordingly, the properties of his mother came to the share of Gurumurthy. All the daughters were married and they were staying in their respective husband's house. After the death of P.M. Gurumurthy on 30.9.2000, all the properties which were in as possession came to the exclusive possession of the defendant. She was looking after the schedule properties after the death of Gurumurthy. The defendant has created charge and encumbrances over the suit schedule property at the instigation of her relatives thereby causing loss to the schedule property. Therefore, the plaintiffs wanted their share of the schedule property by partition and giving to their possession. Therefore, they filed a suit for partition and separate possession against the defendant.
(3.) THE defendant after service of summons entered appearance, filed a detailed written statement and contested the claim, She contended all the properties in the possession of the defendant are her self -acquired properties; She admitted that P.K. Marulasiddaiah had some ancestral properties at Pattanagere Village. He had not acquired any properties as alleged the plaint. All the properties which are in her possession are her self acquired properties, Gurumurthy her only son and she has 5 daughters. There was no partition in the year 1999 as alleged. The plaintiffs cannot claim any share in the suit schedule properties as it is her self -acquired properties. The defendant filed a suit before the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.). Kadur in respect of the LIC amount as she was the nominee in the insurance policy obtained by Gurumurthy and the said suit is still pending. Her 5 daughters are the necessary parties to the suit and the suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties. Plaintiffs have received all the financial emoluments payable by the Government due to the death of Gurumurthy and have not given any amount to the defendant. She is also entitled to a share in the said amount. Plaintiff No. 2 along with her brothers After the death of Gurumurthy came to the house and took away all the valuable gold and silver ornaments and other movables and they are in possession of the plaintiffs. In fact, plaintiff No. 2 also got a job on compassionate grounds and is serving as SDC at Hassan and getting salary Plaintiffs have no right in the schedule property; No as use of action to the suit and therefore, she sought for dismissal of the suit.;