CHELLAPPA DEAD BY HIS LRS Vs. THIMMAKKA

JUDGEMENT

(-1.) 1. The respondent instituted O.S.No.3/1983 seeking her share in the suit schedule properties. Deceased Thimmanna was the defendant in the suit and his legal representatives herein are the appellants. The suit was decreed and appeal preferred by the defendant was dismissed. The matter came up before this Court in the second appeal. Decree of partition was confirmed. Thereafter, the respondent instituted final decree proceedings in FDP No.2/2005. During the pendency of the proceedings, a Commissioner was appointed to effect partition in the agricultural lands. After inspection of the properties, he submitted his report and also the sketches, divided the properties into two halves. A final decree was drawn granting part-I share to the defendant and part-II share to the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the final decree RA 18/2011 was preferred. The said appeal was dismissed and this is the second appeal against the final decree.

(-1.) 2. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

(-1.) 3. The only contention that has been raised is; that the trial court has not specified as to which portion of the property falls to the share of the different parties. The learned counsel for the respondent has produced the certified copy of final decree along with the sketches drawn by the Commissioner and also there is reference of part-I and part-II in respect of the share of the parties. As per the sketch and the final decree, the first part goes to the share of the appellants herein, whereas, the second part goes to the share of the respondent. The perusal of sketch reveals the portions of suit properties divided as part-I and part-II and part-I is granted to the share of the appellants and part-II is granted to the share of the respondent. The trial court in the final decree proceedings apart from demarcating the divisions through Commissioner has granted the share to each of the parties by including the same in the final decree as well. So the perusal of the sketch and also the final decree point out the share allotted to respective parties as stated above. Hence, I do not find any substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal.