KARABASAYYA Vs. CHANVEERAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellants. Though notices were issued to the respondents, they did not choose to engage services of a counsel. Hence, service of notice to respondents is held sufficient.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit seeking relief of partition in O.S.No.91/2005 dtd. 27/9/2006 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Ron.

(3.) Factual matrix of the case of the appellants i.e. plaintiffs before the trial Court is that plaintiffs' sister Shantavva died without any issues and she became absolute owner of the suit schedule properties on account of death of her husband. After the death of Shantavva, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have become as nearest legal representatives of deceased Shantavva. It is also the claim of the plaintiffs that after the death of Shantavva, they are entitled for equal share along with defendant No.1. It is contended that defendant No.1 colluding with his wife defendant No.2 have got entered their names to the suit properties without any right and thereafter sold suit land in favour of defendant No.3 and defendant No.2 sold suit house in favour of defendant No.4 without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Hence, they claimed 1/3rd share.