KEMPAMMA W/O. CHOWDEGOWDA @ CHIKKAHYDEGOWDA Vs. CHOWDEGOWDA S/O. CHOWDEGOWDA @ DADIGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. SMT. KEMPAMMA W/O. LATE CHOWDEGOWDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are concurrent findings of courts below that defendants have failed to prove that suit items 5, 6 and 8 had fallen to share of husband of I -defendant and I -defendant has failed to prove that husband of I -defendant namely Chowdegowda @ Chikkahydegowda and plaintiff are direct brothers. This second appeal was admitted to consider following substantial questions of law: - (1) Whether the courts below were justified in holding that the defendant has failed to prove the partition pleaded by them coupled with the fact that items 5, 6 & 8 have fallen to their share? (2) Whether the courts below were justified in granting the declaration sought for by the plaintiff when the recitals in the unregistered document at an undisputed point of time stand in the name of Chowdegowda @ Chikkahydegowda who is the husband of defendant No. 1 and father of defendants 2 & 3?

(2.) I have heard Sri Nitish, learned counsel for appellants/defendants and Sri Chandrakanth Patil, learned counsel for respondents/plaintiffs.

(3.) THE oral evidence adduced by parties would disclose that the grandfather of original plaintiff namely Huchappanavara Dadigowda had three sons namely Sappe Siddegowda, Chowdegowda @ Dadigowda and Eregowda. The oral evidence discloses that the husband of I -defendant was the son of Sappe Siddegowda and the original plaintiff was the son of Chowdegowda @ Dadigowda.