VENKATESHAPPA Vs. LAKSHMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.340/2013 that suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants and it is the contention of the defendants before the Trial Court that already there was a partition among the members of the family and hence they are not entitled for the relief.

(3.) The plaintiffs in order to prove their case examined the plaintiff No.1(c) as PW1 and got examined two witnesses as PWs.2 and 3 and also got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P5 and confronted Exs.P6 and P7 to DW2. On the other hand defendant No.1 has examined as DW1 and got marked documents Exs.D1 to D90. After his demise defendant No.1(b) is examined as DW2 and adopted Exs.D1 to D90 and got examined two witnesses as DW3 and DW4. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence answered issue No.1 as partly in the affirmative and the contention of the defendant that already there was a partition is not accepted and the same is answered as negative and hence comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for a share and also considered the right of defendants, also granting 1/7th share each in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 of suit schedule properties. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court an appeal is filed in R.A.No.156/2022. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds urged in the appeal memo formulated the points, whether the Trial Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion that properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants and whether the Trial Court has committed an error in decreeing the suit and whether the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is perverse, capricious and call for interference. The First Appellate Court also on re-appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence.