PARAMESH AND ANOTHER Vs. S. HANUMANTHARAYAPPA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are before this Court in appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit by the XLIII Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore in OS 194/2003 on 30.11.2010.

(2.) THE defendants have also filed cross objection praying that the judgment and decree passed in OS 194/2003 be confirmed.

(3.) ON service of summons, defendants appeared before the Court, however, only the 1st and 2nd defendant filed their written statement denying the plaint averments. At the first instance, they have denied the relationship of the plaintiffs with the 1st defendant while admitting the family partition in the year 1972. It is stated, the 1st defendant was working at HMT and retired from service during August, 1987. He had married Galamma and the 2nd defendant is his only son. On the death of Galamma on 21.3.1997, he never married Krishnamma as stated in the plaint and denied that the plaintiffs are children of the 1st defendant through Krishnamma. It is stated, the plaintiffs are in no way concerned with the family of 1st defendant and, therefore, are not entitled for any relief as claimed. Further, stating that 1st and 2nd defendants are the absolute owners of the schedule properties and the plaintiffs have no right title or interest over the same to question the transactions done by them in respect of the schedule properties, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.