9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the plaint schedule property is the joint family property of the parties. 2. Whether the second defendant is entitled to an injunction against the plaintiffs as sought. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Joint Family Property: The plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 641 of 1988 for partition of house property, alleging it was purchased by their father, M. V. Chalapathi Rao, in the name of the first defendant, benami for the joint family. The first defendant relinquished his share via a registered release deed dated 30.08.1966. The second defendant claimed the property was his self-acquired property, purchased with his earnings as a government servant, and that the ancestral properties were sold to discharge debts. The court noted that the ancestral properties were sold under Exs.A.2 and A.3 for Rs. 4,000/-, which was more than adequate to purchase plots 84 and 85. The recitals in Exs.A.2 and A.3 indicated the sale was for acquiring a shelter at Hyderabad, not for discharging debts. The court found no evidence that the sale proceeds were used to discharge debts, thus supporting the plaintiffs' claim. Ex.B.1 showed the first defendant paid the entire consideration for plot No. 84, contradicting the second defendant's claim of a benami transaction. The court emphasized that benami transactions by government servants, violating service rules, should not be upheld. The court also found that the house on the plaint schedule property was constructed with contributions from all defendants, indicating it was treated as joint family property. The continuous residence of the parents and plaintiffs in the property further supported this. 2. Injunction: The second defendant filed O.S. No. 1369 of 1989 for an injunction against the plaintiffs, claiming the property as his self-acquired property. The plaintiffs argued that the property was joint family property, and thus, no injunction could be granted against them. The court noted that the second defendant's son admitted in an affidavit (Ex.A.20) that he resided in the property with the permission of the first plaintiff and fourth defendant. This admission, along with the fact that the second defendant never exercised ownership rights before filing the suit, weakened his claim. The court found that the first defendant's release deed (Ex.A.1) in favor of the first plaintiff and fourth defendant implied acknowledgment of their pre-existing rights, indicating the property was joint family property. The decree in O.S. No. 4144 of 1986 obtained by the second defendant was deemed a nullity as it was obtained by fraud and was not binding on the plaintiffs and defendants 3 and 4. The court concluded that since the property was joint family property, the second defendant could not seek an injunction against the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 4 were entitled to their respective shares, and the plaintiffs were entitled to seek partition of their 2/5th share. Judgment: Both appeals were dismissed, affirming the property as joint family property and denying the second defendant's claim for an injunction. The plaintiffs were entitled to partition their share in the property.
|
