Appellate Court Modifies Decree, Upholds Property Findings

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, allowing the cross-objections. The preliminary decree was modified to distribute the 1st appellant's share among legal heirs. The trial court's findings on property availability for partition were upheld. The court directed each party to bear their own costs, closing pending miscellaneous petitions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether item No. 1 of the plaint 'A' schedule property is the separate property of the 1st defendant.
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition and separate possession of their shares as mentioned in the plaint.
3. What are all the properties available for partition.
4. Whether the Will executed by late Narayana Murthy is genuine, true, and valid.
5. Whether the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are entitled to any share in the properties of late Narayana Murthy.
6. Whether the 1st plaintiff bequeathed 1/4th share in items 2 and 3 of the plaint 'B' schedule property under a Will dated 02.02.1988.
7. Whether the 6th defendant is entitled to 1/4th share in items 2 and 3 of the plaint 'B' schedule property.
8. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court are proper and if they require interference.
9. To what relief the parties are entitled.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Whether item No. 1 of the plaint 'A' schedule property is the separate property of the 1st defendant:
The property in question was purchased under Ex. A1 and Ex. A2 sale deeds. The appellants contended that these were benami transactions, with the 1st appellant providing the funds. The 1st respondent claimed the property was bought with his own funds. The trial court held that the property was purchased by the 1st appellant but dismissed the claim due to Section 4(1) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, which prohibits suits based on benami transactions. The court found no evidence of a coparcenary or Hindu undivided family by the time of the transactions, thus rejecting the appellants' claim.

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition and separate possession of their shares as mentioned in the plaint:
The court found that the appellants did not have a right to promote a case of benami regarding item No. 1 of the plaint 'A' schedule. The evidence did not support the appellants' claim that the funds for the property came from the 1st appellant. The trial court's findings were upheld, confirming that item No. 1 of the plaint 'A' schedule is the property of the 1st respondent.

3. What are all the properties available for partition:
The trial court held that items 2 and 3 of the plaint 'A' schedule were available for partition, while item 1 of the plaint 'A' schedule and items 1 and 2 of the plaint 'B' schedule were not. The appellate court confirmed these findings, noting that the tractor trailer and saw machine (items 1 and 2 of the plaint 'B' schedule) were sold by the 1st respondent and were never part of the joint family property.

4. Whether the Will executed by late Narayana Murthy is genuine, true, and valid:
The appellants claimed that the 1st appellant left a Will dated 02.02.1988 bequeathing his properties to the appellants 2 to 4 and respondent No. 6. The 1st respondent disputed the Will, alleging it was manipulated by the 2nd appellant. The trial court accepted the Will, but the appellate court found the evidence insufficient to prove its validity, noting the failure to examine other attestors and the scribe. The Will was deemed not genuine, true, or valid.

5. Whether the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are entitled to any share in the properties of late Narayana Murthy:
Given the invalidity of the Will, plaintiffs 3 and 4 were not entitled to any share in the properties of late Narayana Murthy based on the Will.

6. Whether the 1st plaintiff bequeathed 1/4th share in items 2 and 3 of the plaint 'B' schedule property under a Will dated 02.02.1988:
The court found the Will invalid, thus the 1st plaintiff did not bequeath a 1/4th share in items 2 and 3 of the plaint 'B' schedule property.

7. Whether the 6th defendant is entitled to 1/4th share in items 2 and 3 of the plaint 'B' schedule property:
The 6th defendant's claim based on the Will was rejected due to the Will's invalidity.

8. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court are proper and if they require interference:
The appellate court confirmed the trial court's judgment and decree regarding the non-availability of item 1 of the plaint 'A' schedule and items 1 and 2 of the plaint 'B' schedule for partition. However, the findings on the Will were reversed, affecting the distribution of the 1st appellant's share.

9. To what relief the parties are entitled:
The appellate court modified the preliminary decree to divide items 2 and 3 of the plaint 'A' schedule into three equal shares: one for the 1st respondent, one for the legal heirs of the 2nd appellant, and one for the legal heirs of the 2nd respondent. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-objections were allowed. The preliminary decree was modified to reflect the proper distribution of the 1st appellant's share among the legal heirs. The findings of the trial court regarding the non-availability of certain properties for partition were confirmed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.

---