LOKAPPA MARA BASAPPA Vs. MARABASAPPA HUCHHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment and decree dated 12-3-2002 passed in Os No. 59/1986. Facts in brief are as under;

(2.) PLAINTIFFS are the sons of the first defendant. They filed a suit for partition and for declaration before the trial court. A declaration was sought to the effect that action sale of the suit schedule property bearing CTS No. 2441 in execution case No. 113/1997 is not binding on them. Second defendant on an earlier occasion filed a suit for recovery of money from the first defendant (father of the plaintiffs) on the basis of a pro-note executed by the first defendant. The suit ended in a compromise. Decree was drawn. Decree was executed in execution No. 143/1983. The suit property was brought to sale and the third defendant purchased the property in court auction. Plaintiffs were not parties to the earlier suit. According to the present plaintiffs, their father contracted debts for illegal and immoral purposes and it is not for the benefit of the family or for legal necessity. Further plaint averments are that the Miscellaneous case No. 101/1984 filed by the plaintiffs came to be dismissed for default. Misc. Case 24/86 was also rejected. Again CRP No. 273/1986 was filed. The said revision was also dismissed with an observation that the plaintiffs can file a suit. The suit filed for partition and declaration came to be dismissed. RFA. No. 231/1991 preferred by the plaintiffs was allowed and the matter was remanded for fresh trial. Two applications were filed. One for amendment and one for production of additional documents. The said applications were rejected. CRPS filed in this court were also dismissed with certain observations. With these facts this appeal is presented before me.

(3.) SRI DLN Rao, learned counsel for the appellants essentially contends that the earlier suit is not binding on them and the debts incurred by the father was not for legal necessities. He also contends that the facts of this case would show that a valuable property is being sold in court auction for no fault of the children. Counsel relies on judgments in his favour. The matter was reserved for judgment. The learned counsel again wanted to argue and he was permitted to make further submission.