2007 (3) TMI 804 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties.
2. Whether the defendant unlawfully got the revenue entries in his name and refused to allot the plaintiff's share.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to half share and mesne profits.
4. Pecuniary jurisdiction and maintainability of the suit.
5. Whether the suit schedule properties are absolute properties of T.C. Nanjappa.
6. Additional issues regarding the acceptance of additional evidence and amendment of the written statement.

Summary:

Issue 1: Ancestral and Joint Family Properties
The plaintiff claimed that the suit schedule properties were ancestral and joint family properties. The trial court, based on oral and documentary evidence, held that the plaintiff proved the properties were joint family properties and in joint possession. The appellate court affirmed this finding, rejecting the defendant's claim that the properties were absolute properties of T.C. Nanjappa.

Issue 2: Revenue Entries and Refusal to Allot Share
The trial court found that the defendant unlawfully got the revenue entries in his name with an ulterior motive and refused to allot the plaintiff's half share. This finding was upheld by the appellate court.

Issue 3: Entitlement to Half Share and Mesne Profits
The trial court held that the plaintiff was entitled to half share in the suit schedule properties and mesne profits. The appellate court affirmed this decision.

Issue 4: Pecuniary Jurisdiction and Maintainability
The trial court rejected the defendant's contention that the court had no pecuniary jurisdiction and that the suit was not maintainable. This was also upheld by the appellate court.

Issue 5: Absolute Properties of T.C. Nanjappa
The trial court found that the defendants failed to establish that the suit schedule properties were the absolute properties of T.C. Nanjappa. The appellate court affirmed this finding.

Additional Issues:
The appellate court rejected applications for additional evidence and amendment of the written statement, holding that no satisfactory grounds were made out for allowing them.

Substantial Questions of Law:
The High Court considered whether the courts below were justified in holding that the mortgage deed Ex.D1 did not establish partition and whether the rejection of applications for additional evidence and amendment was justified. The High Court also considered whether the courts below were justified in holding that there existed a joint family and the suit schedule properties were joint family properties, given the plaintiff's admission of a partition 80 years back.

High Court Judgment:
The High Court found that the courts below ignored material evidence, including the mortgage deed Ex.D1, which indicated a partition. The plaintiff's admission of a partition 80 years back and the lack of evidence of joint family living and enjoyment of properties led the High Court to conclude that the plaintiff was not a member of the joint family and the properties were not joint family properties. The High Court set aside the judgments and decrees of the lower courts and dismissed the plaintiff's suit, with parties bearing their own costs.