RUKMINI BAI Vs. VENKOBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS regular second appeal is preferred by the appellants in R. A. No. 6/96 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the courts-below dismissing the appeal preferred by them and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court in O. S. No. 185/91 which was partly decreed by the Trail Court.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in the course of this judgment with reference to their rank in the trail court.

(3.) THE suit schedule properties belonged to one belonged to one Sakkubayamma. She had a daughter by name Bhagyamma who pre-deceased her in the year 1967. The said Bhagyamma had four daughters and one son. Sakkubayamma died in the year 1980. During her life time Sakkubayamma sold part of the suit property measuring 105 x 48 feet to one Krishnoji Rao which was subsequently purchased by Padmavathamma, the second defendant under a registered deed of sale on 28. 9. 1977. Sakkubayamma has executed the document Ex. D10 transferring the remaining part of the schedule property to Padmavathamma, who was one of her grand daughters. The plaintiffs are the brother and two sisters of Padmavathamma and Rukmini Bai who is arrayed as the first defendant is their another sister. The suit property is in possession of the second defendant in whose favour the said document was executed. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of 1/5th share in the suit property which is site bearing No. 980 of Harnahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Arasikere Taluk, measuring east to west 108 feet and north to south 54 feet on the ground that the property belonged to their grandmother Sakkubayamma. The suit was defended by the defendants on the plea that she has been in possession of portion of the suit property measuring 85 x 24 feet in her own right as owner having purchased the same from its vendor Mr. Krishnoji Rao under a registered sale deed on 28. 9. 1977. In respect of the other portion, the stand taken by the defendants was that the same was transferred to her under Ex. D10 by her grand-mother Sakkubayamma and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any decree in their favour in respect of the entire suit schedule property.