KANTILAL PRATAPCHAND OSWAL Vs. REVAPPA BASALINGAPPA NADAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Second Appeals arise out of two suits, one for partition and certain other reliefs, and the other for injunction. These two suits were heard together and disposed of by a common Judgment. In view of the order, which I propose to make, it is not necessary for me to refer to the detailed facts of the case. I shall, therefore, only state those facts which are necessary.

(2.) O.S. No. 60/74 was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of joint family properties as also for declaration that the alienation made by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 4 of the suit land on 10-12-1970 and the subsequent sale made by defendant No. 4 in favour of defendant No. 5 on 16-6-1972, were not binding upon them. It may be observed that the defendant No. 1 is the brother of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff; No. 3 is the mother of plaintiff No. 2. The trial Court partly decreed the suit inasmuch as it granted relief to plaintiff No. 1 the brother of defendant No. 1, and declared his share in the family properties. Further, the learned Munsiff held that the alienation made by defendants-1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 4 was not supported by legal necessity and therefore not binding upon plaintiff No. 1. The trial Court refused to grant relief to plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that they are the son and wife of defendant No. 1.

(3.) Aggrieved by the Judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S. No. 60/74, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 preferred an appeal being R.A. No. 14/77. This appeal was filed before the Court of Civil Judge, Bijapur. Notices were issued in the appeal and were served upon defendants-4 and 5 and they filed cross objection under Order 41, Rule 22 CPC.