V.G. MANJUNATHA ALIAS MANJAPPA, V.G. HALANAGOUDA ALIAS HALAPPA, SMT. SOWBHAGYAMMA AND V.G. KOTRAMMA Vs. V.G. HALANAGOUDA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in R.A. No. 7/2010 dated 21.4.2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Harapanahalli, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 19/2004 dated 18.12.2009 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Harapanahalli.

(2.) THE appellants are the plaintiffs in the suit and the respondents are the defendants. The parties are referred to by their respective ranking before the trial Court.

(3.) THE plaintiffs filed the above suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property. The defendants have taken up a contention that there was an oral partition of the family properties and that the property which had fallen to the share of the plaintiffs had already been sold by them. On the basis of this plea, the trial Court has framed an issue which is as under: Whether defendant No. 2 proves previous oral partition between their ancestors and enjoying their respective share of properties as pleaded under the head of Additional plea ? The parties have let in their evidence. The defendants have produced the sale deed at Ex. D2 dated 9.11.1977 executed by plaintiff No. 4. Under this sale deed, plaintiff No. 4 and her minor children have jointly sold a portion of the family property. In the said sale deed, it has been clearly stated that in the family partition, the schedule property was allotted to the share of the Kotragouda, husband of plaintiff No. 4. Ex. D3 is yet another sale deed executed by Veerupaksha Gouda, the husband of plaintiff No. 5. The said sale deed also contains a similar recital. In fact P.W. 1 in his evidence has clearly stated that the partition had taken place between four sons of Eshwaragouda. P.W. 1 and his family members were allotted one house out of four houses. The oral and documentary evidence clearly establish that there was a prior partition in the family. Appreciating the evidence on record, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit. The First Appellate court has again considered the matter in detail and has dismissed the appeal. The findings of fact recorded by the Courts below are on the basis of the materials on record. There is no perversity, illegality or irregularity whatsoever in those findings. The appeal does not involve any substantial questions of law. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.