ALEX PINTO Vs. FLORINE MORAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal is filed by defendant No.1 assailing the judgment and decree dated 10th March, 2017 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bantwal, Dakshina Kannada in Regular Appeal No.52 of 2007 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29th October, 1999 passed in O.S No.464 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) at Bantwal, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) Rank of parties in this appeal is referred to with their status before the trial Court.

(3.) Plaintiff filed a suit for partition and for mense profits in respect of plaint A schedule property into three equal share. It is the case of plaintiff that A schedule property was jointly purchased by one late Coses D Souza Bai along with one Berned Menazes as per the registered sale deed dated 03rd February, 1972. It is further stated in the plaint that the said Berned Menazes relinquished his rights in terms of Release Deed dated 29th December, 1999 in favour of Coses D Souza. Pursuant to release of rights, the said Coses D Souza Bai became the absolute owner of the schedule property. The said Coses D Souza Bai died on 29th December, 1978 leaving behind no issues, however, the children of her sister Bridget D souza viz. defendant No.1, defendant No.2 and their elder sister Mrs. Lilly Pinto. It is the case of the plaintiff that aforementioned three children of the sister of Coses D Souza Bai are entitled to one- third share each in A schedule property. It is also mentioned in the plaint that Mrs. Lilly Pinto sold her one-third share to the plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 19th February, 1987 and as such, the averments made in the plaint are that the plaintiff became the owner of the one-third share in the plaint A schedule property and jointly held the same with defendants 1 and 2. It is further stated in the plaint that defendant No.1 won over his brother defendant No.2 with an intention to knock off plaint A schedule property and thereby, not permitted the plaintiff to enjoy her one-third share in the suit schedule property, and the request made by the plaintiff was rejected by defendants and as such, plaintiff has filed O.S No.464 of 1991 before the trial Court seeking relief of partition and consequential relief.