MONAKKA SHINDE Vs. MARUTI SHINDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff in O.S. No. 370/2004 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Belgaum, has come up in this second appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 13/01/2012 passed in Regular Appeal No. 117/2010 on the file of Principal District Judge, Belgaum, wherein the judgment and decree dated 07/01/2010 in O.S. No. 370/2004 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Belgaum, in granting decree and 1/3rd share to plaintiff in the suit schedule properties is set aside and suit of the plaintiff is rejected. In effect, this appeal is challenging the divergent finding rendered by lower appellate Court.

(2.) In this appeal, the parties to the proceedings are referred by their rank in the original suit for the sake of convenience and brief facts leading to this second appeal are as follows:

(3.) When the matter stood thus, it is seen that first defendant took up Government Service as Police Officer. Since 1966 and the second defendant who is about 10-12 years younger to first defendant started running printing press and also engaged in local politics and contested in the election of corporator and did all unwanted things besides continuing his business. It is also on record that the relationship between the parties were cordial until it came to the stage of filing of the present suit on the ground that in the year 2002, defendants 1 and 2 together approached the plaintiff and represented to her that they are dividing the suit schedule properties between three of them assuring a portion to her and they also assured that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- would be given for her maintenance besides a share in the suit schedule properties and while stating so, they presented a partition deed took her signature on the last sheet to the document and took her to Sub Registrar's office to get the document registered. Though she was assured that a share in the suit schedule properties and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- will be given, it is stated by the plaintiff that neither Rs. 50,000/- was given nor she was informed what was the property that was given to her share.