Pushpa Sathyanarayana, J. - (1.) AGGRIEVED by the unanimous decisions of the Courts below in a suit for declaration of title and injunction, the plaintiff has preferred the above Second Appeal.
(2.) THIS is a dispute between the members of the family, wherein, the plaintiff, who is one of the sons is fighting against his parents, who are the first and second defendants and his brothers, who are the defendants 3 to 5 and the sister, who is the seventh defendant. The plaintiff claims the suit properties to be the ancestral properties of the family and that there was an oral partition in the year 1991. He had also claimed that the suit properties were allotted to him in the said oral partition and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. As the plaintiff is a teacher, he had leased the properties to various persons. The plaintiff also in order to prove his right in the property claimed that he had mortgaged the properties to one Gopal for a period of three years. As the defendants objected to the said encumbrance, the plaintiff had filed the suit. Though the plaintiff claimed that the first and second defendants(parents) were with him, subsequently, the defendants 3 to 5 have taken along with them. As the defendants colluding against the plaintiff, the suit came to be filed. The plaintiff also has challenged the execution of the Will -Ex. 14 dated 14.09.2003 as sham and nominal.
(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendants, denying all the facts supporting the averments in the plaint. The defendants also denied the oral partition and the other allegations that the suit properties were purchased out of the ancestral income, etc. The first defendant had purchased the said properties on 21.12.1966 and other properties are also purchased by him and he had been in possession of the same. In fact, the said properties are subject matter in S.A. No. 1148 of 2003.;