G.M. Guruswamy and Others vs G.M. Gurusiddaiah and Others

N. Kumar, J.—This is plaintiffs'' Regular First Appeal challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession on the ground that the subject matter of the suit has fallen to the share of the first defendant in an earlier partition deed, therefore, the suit is not maintainable.

For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

On the day the suit was filed, the subject matter of the suit was only land bearing R.S. No. 2/P2/P2 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas situated in Guddadalinganahalli Village, Bilichodu Hobli, Jagalur Tq. which is more fully described in the schedule to the plaint as Schedule ''A'' property. Schedule-B property was the compensation amount of Rs. 5,03,010/- and the enhanced compensation payable in pursuance of the orders passed by the Reference Court, in all amounting to Rs. 27,04,729/- on 30.9.2002.

One Siddaiah alias Siddappa S/o. Madivalaiah was the propositus of the family. Smt. Mahadevamma was his wife. They had three sons namely Sri G.M. Gurusiddaiah, Sri G.M. Madivalaiah and Sri G.M. Revanasiddaiah. Sri G.M. Gurusiddaiah-the eldest son had only one son Sri G.M. Rudraiah. Sri G.M. Rudraiah and his wife Smt. Gowramma are dead. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are their children. On the date of the suit, G.M. Madivalaiah the second son of Siddaiah had died. His son Gurusiddaiah is the first defendant. Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are daughters of Madivalaiah. Revanasiddaiah was also not alive as on the date of suit. Even, his wife Deviramma was not alive. Plaintiff Nos. 6 to 13 are the legal heirs i.e. daughters and sons of Revanasiddaiah and Deveeramma. Defendants 5 to 12 are the purchasers.

The case of the plaintiffs is, Siddaiah was owning several agricultural lands and house properties. One such land is R.S. No. 2 situated at Guddadalinganahalli measuring 27.20 acres. During the lifetime of Siddaiah, he effected partition of the family properties under a registered partition deed bearing SR 60 of 63-64 dated 17.4.1963. Under the partition, Sri Siddaiah partitioned all the joint family properties except 27 acres 20 guntas of land in R.S. No. 2 of Guddadalinganahalli. Sri Siddaiah had retained this land as his share allotted by the family members. Siddaiah did not join execution of the partition deed as he did not take any share under the partition deed. Since the said land in R.S. No. 2 is his self-acquired property, he has retained the same towards his share.

The partition dated 17.4.1963 has been acted upon by the parties to the said partition deed, they and their successors have been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the properties fallen to the share of their respective purchasers.

Sri Siddaiah died in the year 1965 intestate. After the death, all his legal heirs have become joint owners of 27 acres 20 guntas in R.S. No. 2 of Guddadalinganahalli. Since defendant No. 1 is eldest male member, the khatha of the said property was made out in his name. Subsequently, there was tenancy dispute over the said land. Some persons had filed declaration before the Land Tribunal, Jagalur. One Channappa and Obayya claimed tenancy rights in respect of 20 acres of land. Their claim was rejected, however, in respect of 7 acres 20 guntas tenancy has been conferred in favour of Smt. Mallamma and she is in possession of the same and the remaining land is only 20 acres and the legal heirs of Siddaiah have share in the said 20 acres of land.

Since there was tenancy dispute, defendant No. 1 was telling them that he would defend the case before revenue authorities. After disposal of the cases, he would effect partition of said 20 acres of land among all the legal heirs of late Siddaiah. Recently, they came to know that an extent of 18.09 acres of land out of 20.00 acres in R.S. No. 2 of Guddadalinganahalli was acquired for the purpose of tank by the Assistant Commissioner and Land Acquisition Officer, Harapanahalli and has awarded compensation in the year 1966. Against the said award, defendant No. 1 had filed reference application and reference was made to the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Davanagere in LAC No. 9/99 and the compensation was enhanced and fixed at Rs. 27,600/- per acre in the said case. The plaintiffs also learnt that defendant No. 1 has already drawn a sum of Rs. 6,83,169/- from the Land Acquisition Officer out of the total compensation of Rs. 30,03,241/- payable as on 27.9.2002. Defendant No. 1 did not disclose the fact of acquisition of land, passing of the award, enhancement of compensation and receipt of compensation. He has thus secreted the funds in order to deprive the plaintiffs of their legitimate right.

Plaintiffs 1 to 5 are together entitled for 1/3rd share, the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are together entitled for 1/3rd share and plaintiff Nos. 6 to 13 are together entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit ''A'' and ''B'' schedule properties. Out of 20 acres of land, an extent of 18.09 acres has been acquired and compensation has been awarded. Remaining 1 acre 31 guntas of land which is in the khatha of defendant No. 1, the plaintiffs and defendants are having equal share in the land as well as in the compensation awarded in Land Acquisition case. As defendant Nos. 1 to 4 did not give their legitimate share in ''A'' and ''B'' schedule property, they were constrained to file suit for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd of their share.

After service of notice, defendant No. 1 has filed a detailed written statement. He admitted the genealogical tree, the birth and death in the family. However, he contended that Siddaiah was owning 27 acres 20 guntas of land in S. No. 2 of Guddadalinganahalli village is false. He also denied the allegation that Siddaiah effected the partition of the family properties under a registered partition deed on 17.4.1963. He further denied that he had retained 27 acres 20 guntas in R.S. No. 2 towards his share in the joint family properties. He denied allegation that Siddaiah died in 1965 intestate. His specific plea is that Siddaiah died in the year 1953. He admitted tenancy dispute pleaded in the plaint. He denied the allegation that in respect of 7 acres and 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 2 of Guddadalinganahalli, one Mallamma had claimed tenancy rights and he admitted Mallamma is in possession of 7 acres 20 guntas of land after purchase from defendant No. 1 in 2001. All other allegations in the plaint were denied by the defendants. The share claimed by the plaintiffs in ''A'' and ''B'' schedule properties is also denied. They admitted acquisition of land. They admitted only ''A'' schedule property.

Their specific defence was, Siddaiah who was propositus of the family died in the year 1953. His wife Mahadevamma died long back. Siddaiah had three sons and he owned several lands as Kartha of the family in respect of properties derived from ancestors. On 2.4.1951, Siddaiah had divided the property under an unregistered partition deed had given several properties to them. In this regard, separate specific partition deed was made and each was got included. The each of the abovesaid parties are having separate share in respect of the property secured by them under the single partition. Madivalaiah, the father of defendant No. 1 had succeeded to the property bearing Sy. No. 2 measuring 27 acres 20 guntas of Guddadalinganahalli village and in Gode village Sy. No. 34 measuring 15 acres 17 guntas, Sy. No. 5 (Matada land) measuring 10 acres 31 guntas, Sy. No. 47 measuring 6 acres (cultivation of Begar Basappa).

In terms of the partition so effected, each of parties got the khatha of the properties transferred to their name. Afterwards, Rudraiah and Revanasiddaiah have sold the properties which fell to their share in the said partition. The partition of 1951 has been acted upon. Rudraiah died in 2005 and Gurusiddaiah died in 2004. During their lifetime, they have not claimed any share in the property. After the death of Rudraiah and Gurusiddaiah, the plaintiff have claimed the properties unlawfully causing pecuniary loss to the defendants.

Their father Madivalaiah succeeded to the properties described in para. 9 of the written statement. Thereafter, he got changed the said khatha in his name. He died in the year 1969. Land bearing Sy. No. 2 of Guddadalinganahalli measuring 18 acres 18 guntas was acquired by the Government for formation of irrigation tank in the year 1976. In the year 1992, defendant No. 1 has obtained compensation amount from the Government regarding this acquisition. Defendant No. 1 has sold 7 acres of land in 2001 to Mallamma and she is in possession of the said property to the extent of 7 acres in Sy. No. 2. After the above said acquisition only 1 acre 31 guntas in Sy. No. 2 stands in the name of defendant No. 1 and exclusively belongs to him.

In 1977, one Channappa and another Obayya filed separate applications before Land Tribunal, Jagalur against defendant No. 1 claiming occupancy rights in respect of 10 acres of land each in the said Sy. No. 2 of Guddadalinganahalli Village. The tenancy was confirmed by the Land Tribunal, Jagalur in the year 1979 in favour of the said applicants. In the said case, before the Land Tribunal, plaintiffs'' father Rudraiah S/o. Gurusiddaiah tendered evidence on behalf of said tenancy. At that time Rudraiah, has not claimed ownership right in the said land. On the evidence of Rudraiah, the Land Tribunal confirmed the occupancy rights in favour of the said applicants. In that case, as defendant No. 1 has tendered evidence before Land Tribunal and said Rudraiah has deposed falsely in favour of said tenants with jealously to cause loss and legal injury and pecuniary loss to defendant No. 1.

Against the order of the Land Tribunal, Jagalur, defendant No. 1 preferred a writ petition before this Court where the order of the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Land Tribunal, Jagalur for fresh disposal. At that stage, Tribunal issued notice to Rudraiah and Smt. Deveeramma, W/o. Revanasiddaiah. Thereafter, though the notice was served, they did not attend before the Land Tribunal. They have not filed any application before the Tribunal claiming any right over the schedule property. The application filed by the tenants were rejected recognizing the ownership right to defendant No. 1. In 1986, acquisition proceedings was notified in the name of defendant No. 1. It is he who appeared before the Land Acquisition Officer and claimed compensation. Award was passed in favour of defendant No. 1. He has already received the compensation awarded by the Land Acquisition Officer, through Civil Court where the award amount was deposited. He sought for a reference to the Civil Court where the compensation amount was enhanced. It is at the stage of receiving the enhanced compensation, the suit is filed to deprive the defendant No. 1 to receive the enhanced compensation amount.

The partition of 1951 is acted upon. They have got khatha transferred to their share. In the year 1963, they decided to have registered document in respect of the Gode village. Therefore, document was executed and registered at the instance of late Rudraiah the father of plaintiffs 1 to 4. Only Sy. No. 2 of Guddadalinganahalli belonging to the first defendant is available. Therefore, the same was not included in the year 1963 partition deed. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the suit.

Subsequently, plaintiffs got the plaint amended by including items 1 to 8 to the schedule. After amendment, first defendant has filed additional written statement. In para-3 of the plaint, they have set out the manner in which the plaintiffs have conducted subsequent to the suit and how the amendment application came to be filed only to delay disposal of the proceedings. The properties which are now included to the suit are the joint family properties. But they did not belong to the joint family on the date of suit. The RTCs were produced to show that those properties do not stand in the name of any of the family members. Siddaiah was not alive in the year 1963 as he died in the year 1953. In para-7 of the additional statement, the item Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 which were added were all shown to have been sold to various persons as per particulars mentioned therein and therefore, no decree for partition could be passed in respect of those properties. Therefore, they sought for dismissal of the suit.

Defendant Nos. 2, 3 and 4 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No. 1. Defendant Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 have filed separate written statements stating that they have purchased item Nos. 1 to 6 under a registered sale deed from its owners and as such, it is not liable for partition.

On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

"1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that land measuring 20 acres in Sy. No. 2 of Guddadalinganahalli taluk, Jagalur was in possession and enjoyment of themselves and the defendants subsequent to the death of Siddaiah the propositus?

Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the suit ''A'' and ''B'' schedule properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of themselves and the defendants?

Whether the defendant No. 1 to 3 prove that on 2.4.1951 there was a partition during the lifetime of Siddaiah under an unregistered partition deed?

Whether the defendants 1 to 3 further proves that in the said partition the land in Sy. No. 2 measuring 27 acre 21 guntas along with other properties fell to the share of Madivalaiah as contended in para-9 of the written statement?

Whether the Court fee paid is proper and sufficient?

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of partition deed and separate possession in the suit properties?

For what order or decree?

Additional Issue:

Whether the defendants No. 5 to 12 prove that they are the bona fide purchasers in respect of item No. 2 to 9 of ''A'' schedule lands for the valuable consideration as contended in their written statement?

The plaintiffs, in order to establish their claim, examined third plaintiff G.M. Mallikarjunaiah as P.W. 1 and 7th plaintiff Smt. G.M. Manjula as P.W. 2 and produced 85 documents which are marked as Ex. P1 to P85. On behalf of defendants, the first defendant-G.M. Gurusiddaiah was examined as D.W. 1 and he produced 69 documents which are marked as Ex. D1 to D69.

The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record held, the plaintiffs have failed to prove that, land measuring 20 acres in Sy. No. 2 of Guddadalinganahalli Village, Jagalur Taluk was in possession and enjoyment of themselves and defendants subsequent to the death of propositus. They further failed to prove that suit A and B schedule properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of themselves and defendants. On the contrary, the defendants 1 to 3 have proved that on 2.4.1951 there was a partition during the lifetime of Siddaiah under an unregistered partition deed. They further have established that in the partition of 1951, the land bearing Sy. No. 2 measuring 27 acres 21 guntas fell to the share of Madivalaiah the father of defendant Nos. 1 to 4. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, it categorically held, as the said land in Sy. No. 2 measuring 27 acres 21 guntas fell to the share of Madivalaiah in the year 1951 under a partition deed, the suit filed in 2006 for partition and separate possession in respect of A and B schedule properties is not maintainable. It also held that defendant Nos. 5 to 12 are bona fide purchasers in respect of items Nos. 2 to 9 of A schedule lands for valuable consideration as contended in their written statement. Therefore, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs with costs.

Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree of the trial Court, the plaintiffs are in appeal.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs assailing the impugned Judgment and Decree of the trial Court contended, the partition dated 2.4.1951 is not proved. Documents on which the reliance was placed was not admitted in evidence because it was neither duly stamped nor registered, as partition deed is a compulsorily registerable document. If the said document is excluded, there is no positive evidence produced by the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to establish their case of 1951 partition. Admittedly, land in Sy. No. 2 measuring 27 acres 21 guntas is the ancestral property. That property had not been partitioned under the partition deed dated 17.4.1963 as Siddaiah had retained the said property towards his share. On his death, all his children are entitled to equal share. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs and erred in holding that defendants 1 to 4 have established the partition of 1951. The said land fell to his share in the said partition. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to a share in the said property. He submits, in those circumstances, Judgment and Decree of the trial Court requires to be set aside.

Per contra, the learned counsel for defendants 1 to 4 submitted, even if the deed of 2.4.1951 which is described as a Palupatti is not admissible in evidence on record, the conduct of the parties clearly establishes the partition of 1951 and land bearing Sy. No. 2 measuring 27 acres 21 guntas fell to the share of Madivaliaih as such, plaintiffs have no right in the said property. He also pointed out, in the proceedings of the Land Tribunal, the plaintiffs supported the case of the tenants. Thus, they wanted to deprive defendants 1 to 4 of their right in the property. They did not contend in the said proceedings either that they have share or that they are owners of the property. Similarly, when 18 acres and 8 guntas of the said land was notified for acquisition in the year 1976 in the name of first defendant, none of them moved their little finger or put-forth their claim. In the year 1982, when the award was passed, compensation is paid and received by the first defendant, they did not move their little finger and put-forth their claim. It is only when the reference Court enhanced compensation and when the first defendant was about to receive the money in the year 2006, the suit is filed to deprive the first defendant of his legitimate right against the enhanced compensation. In fact, property which has fallen to the share of other two sons of Siddaiah i.e. Gurusiddaiah and Revanasiddaiah alienated the property in the year 1963 by executing registered sale deed in favour of defendant Nos. 5 to 12 which are not in dispute. Therefore, he submitted, the trial Court, on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record was justified in holding that the aforesaid property fell to the share of the father of first defendant in the partition and it is not a joint family property. Plaintiffs have no right in the said property. Therefore, he submits, no case for interference is called.

In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is as under:

"Whether the finding of the trial Court that land bearing Sy. No. 2 measuring 27 acres 21 guntas of Guddadalinganahalli village fell to the share of Madivalaiah, the father of defendant Nos. 1 to 4 under a partition in the year 1951 and thus it ceases to be a joint family property and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the said property, calls for interference?

The evidence on record establishes that the schedule properties originally belonged to Siddaiah, the propositus of the Family. He had three sons namely, Gurusiddaiah, Madivalaiah and Revanasiddaiah. There is dispute regarding date of death of Siddaiah. According to the plaintiffs, he died in the year 1965 and according to defendant Nos. 1 to 4, he died in the year 1953. Both of them have not produced any acceptable evidence to establish their respective contentions. Therefore, we have to find out from the material on record which is the probable date.

It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that, on 17.4.1963, when a registered partition deed came to be executed between Gurusiddaiah, Madivalaiah and Revanasiddaiah the sons of Siddaiah, Siddaiah was very much alive. If their case is to be believed, it is he who effected the partition. Admittedly, Siddaiah is not a party to the partition deed. No property belonging to joint family was allotted to his share. The explanation offered by the plaintiffs is, Siddaiah retained towards his share the land bearing Sy. No. 2 measuring 27 acres 21 guntas and therefore, under the partition deed, no land was allotted to his share and on another breath, he has stated that it is the self-acquired property of Siddaiah. In a joint family governed by Mitakshara law, when the partition is effected between the members of the joint family, if karta of the joint family is alive, he has to be necessarily a party to such partition deed. Excluding him no partition can take place. In those circumstances, the case of the plaintiffs that Siddaiah was alive on 17.4.1963, he effected partition, no property was allotted to his share as he retained it towards his share, is hard to believe. It is in this background, it is probable that Siddaiah died in the year 1953, he was not alive in 1963 when the partition deed was executed. Now it is the specific case of the first defendant that on 2.4.1951, a partition was effected in the joint family in respect of several properties by way of executing Palupatti. It was executed in three parts where two properties which was allotted to each of the parties is set out. It is not written on a stamp paper. It is not registered. When the said document was sought to be produced in evidence, the trial Court declined to receive the said document in evidence on the ground that it is not duly signed and registered, for identification, it is marked as Ex. D.5. If the said document is construed as partition deed, it requires registration. It requires stamp duty and as it is not duly stamped and it is not registered, it is inadmissible evidence and it cannot be looked into. That is precisely what the trial Court has done.

Out of curiosity, we looked into the documents, it is not a partition deed. It is a Palupatti. It is a record setting out property which has fallen to the share of each one of the parties. Such document does not require stamp duty. It does not require registration. Even in the absence of the document, the trial Court has looked into the undisputed material on record to find out whether there was a partition in the year 1951. If defendant Nos. 1 to 4 are able to establish partition in the year 1951 and the aforesaid property fell to his share and then, no case for interference is made out.

Factors which weighed in respect of partition of property in the year 1951 is as under:

Firstly, the partition deed of 17.4.1963 shows, the properties which are subject matter of partition of the land situated in Gode Village and only two items in Kallenahalli village. The family owned land bearing Sy. No. 23/2 measuring 5 acres and 5 guntas of land, in Sy. No. 2 measuring 12 acres 14 guntas, in Sy. No. 43/3, measuring 12 acres, land bearing Sy. No. 2 to an extent of 27 acres 20 guntas and land bearing Sy. No. 19/22 measuring 11 acres 22 guntas, land bearing Sy. No. 14 measuring 5 acres 10 guntas at Guddadalinganahalli, Jagalur Taluk, Davanagere District. In other words, the land situated in Guddadalinganahalli is not the subject matter of the partition deed dated 17.4.1963. The total extent of land held by the family is roughly about 62 acres 2 guntas. No explanation is forthcoming about extent of 62 acres 2 guntas as left out of the partition which was effected in 1963.

Secondly, P.W. 1 in his evidence has admitted in para. 6 and 21 of the cross-examination that Gurusiddaiah, the eldest son of Siddaiah has sold away 5 acres and 5 guntas of piece of land in Sy. No. 23/2 and 12 acres 14 guntas in Sy. No. 22 measuring 12 acres 14 guntas prior to 1963. Similarly, he has admitted Revanasiddaiah and Deveeramma have sold 11 acres 33 guntas in Sy. No. 19/2 and 5 acres 10 guntas in 19/1B situated at Guddadalinganahalli to purchasers prior to 1963 partition. Those sale deeds are not executed by them on behalf of the joint family or for any legal necessity. They have disposed of those lands as if they are the absolute owners. It is those lands, according to the defendants 1 to 4 have fallen to their share under the partition deed dated 02.04.1951. In other words, about 17 acres and 19 guntas of land in Guddadalinganahalli fallen to the share of Gurusiddaiah and 17 acres 3 guntas of land fallen to the share of Revanasiddaiah which they have sold. 27 acres 20 guntas fallen to the share of Madivalaiah. Out of 27 guntas 20 guntas, Madivalaliah has sold to Mallamma under a registered sale deed 7 acres. The fact that the property in possession of Mallamma is admitted by the plaintiffs in their pleadings but their explanation is Mallamma had filed application in Form No. 7 claiming occupancy rights before the Land Tribunal, Jagalur. It granted the said land in her favour which fact is not established. Therefore, this undisputed evidence clearly establishes that three brothers have alienated lands in Guddadalinganahalli village which fell to their share in the 1951 partition and only defendants 1 to 4 have retained 20 acres 20 guntas.

Defendants 5 to 12 are the purchasers and the sale deeds evidencing the sale are produced. In fact, in the original plaint, item Nos. 2 to 9 were not included. Mischievously, in the course of the proceedings, they have been included which were not properties of the joint family on the date the suit was filed and there is no challenge to the said sale deeds at all. The trial Court, in detail has set out the sales with full particulars.

Thirdly, the material on record discloses, one Channappa and Obayya filed separate applications before the Land Tribunal, Jagalur in the year 1977 against defendant No. 1 claiming occupancy rights in respect of 10 acres of land each in Sy. No. 2 of Guddadalinganahalli village. Both Gurusiddaiah and Revanasiddaiah gave evidence in the said proceedings admitting the tenancy. Acting on the said evidence, the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights. Gurusiddaiah and Revenasiddaiah did not choose to challenge the said order but, it is the first defendant who preferred a writ petition before this Court challenging the said order. Writ Petition was allowed and the order of the Land Tribunal was set aside and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. After the said remand, Gurusiddaiah and Revanasiddaiah did not appear before the Tribunal. After enquiry, the Tribunal has held the claim of tenancy is not substantiated and therefore, form No. 7 was dismissed and the said order has attained the finality. It is because of that order, first defendant continues to be the owner of the said property.

Fourthly, 18 acres and 18 guntas out of 20 acres 20 guntas was notified for acquisition by the Government for formation of irrigation tank in the year 1976. In the said notification, the first defendant was shown as Khatedar and the person in possession of the land. It is the first defendant who put-forth his claim before the Land Acquisition Officer. In 1982, an award came to be passed and the amount was paid to the first defendant. Not being satisfied with the compensation paid, he sought for reference to the Civil Court. Gurusiddaiah or Revanasiddaiah did not choose to appear before the Land Acquisition Officer nor before the Reference Court. Compensation was enhanced and the amount was deposited in the Court. It is only at the stage of payment, plaintiffs have preferred the suit to prevent the first defendant from receiving the enhanced compensation. The learned Single Judge at para-35 has clearly set out the conduct of the plaintiffs in creating hurdles in first defendant claiming compensation amount and the way bank guarantee which was expected to furnish was increased.

Fifthly, the material on record discloses, that after 1951, it is Madivalaiah and on his death first defendant who are in uninterrupted possession, enjoyment and ownership of the property. After 1951, neither Gurusiddaiah nor Revanasiddaiah nor their children ever were in possession of the property. After 1951, they have not paid taxes and they have not exercised rights of ownership.

On consideration of these material evidence on record, the trial Court held though the Palupatti was not admissible in evidence, aforesaid material establishes the partition of 1951 as pleaded by defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The aforesaid discussion clearly supports the said finding.

Therefore, we are of the view the material on record is sufficient to hold, the partition of 1951 pleaded by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and in the said partition, the aforesaid property has fallen to the share of Madivalaiah and after the death of Madivalaiah to defendant Nos. 1 to 4 who have succeeded to his estate. Neither the branch of Gurusiddaih nor Revanasiddaiah establishes their right, title or interest over the said property. It ceased to be the joint family property from 1951. In fact, this property was not the subject matter of partition in the year 1963 as this property had fallen to the share of the defendant Nos. 1 to 4 in 1951 partition. From 1963 onwards, there is no joint family property. There is no joint family exists. In the year 2006, putting forth claim of joint family property is totally misconceived as rightly pointed out by the trial Court. It is fraudulent act on the part of the plaintiffs to deprive defendant Nos. 1 to 4 of their legitimate right in the aforesaid property. The trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit and imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

In the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any justification to interfere with the well considered order passed by the trial Court. Hence, we pass the following order:

Appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.