R DIVYA Vs. RAGHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission today. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 17/11/2022, passed in R.A.No.18/2021, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hassan.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and it is their claim that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition. It is also their further case that the sale deed dtd. 5/3/2003 executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.3 is not binding on their shares in the suit schedule properties and hence they are entitled for the relief of partition. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 are father and brother of the plaintiffs, respectively and defendant No.3 is the purchaser of item No.1 of the suit schedule property. The defendant No.3 took the defence that he is a bonafide purchaser of item No.1 of the property and also took the contention that the suit is barred by law of limitation. The plaintiffs in order to prove their case examined plaintiff No.2 as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 7. On the other hand, the defendants examined defendant No.2 as D.W.1 and defendant No.3 got examined himself as D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to 4. The Trial Court having considered the material available on record comes to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and answered issue Nos.1 and 2 partly in the affirmative and issue No.3 in the negative in coming to the conclusion that the sale deed executed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 5/3/2003 in favour of defendant No.3 is a valid sale deed and the same is not binding on the plaintiffs is not accepted. The Trial Court answered issue No.4 in the affirmative and held that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties i.e., item Nos.2 and 3 properties and they are entitled for separate possession and declined to grant any relief in respect of item Nos.1, 4 and 5 properties.