INDIRAMMA Vs. SUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the counsel for the appellants and also counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the order of dismissal of an application filed in the suit in O.S.No.161/2020, wherein seeking to restrain the defendants from alienating the suit schedule property till disposal of the suit. It is the claim of the appellants/plaintiffs that suit schedule property is the ancestral property. They have also sought for relief of declaration. The suit is also in respect of three Survey numbers. Sy.No.No.23/1 to the extent of 1 acre 17 guntas, Sy.No.23/3 to the extent of 1 acre 22 guntas, Sy.No.24 is to the extent of 5 acrs 35 guntas. The counsel vehemently contend that even though the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the source of the property in respect of the suit schedule property is not pleaded in the plaint and counsel vehemently contend that already there was a decree in O.S.N.121/1956 in respect of Sy.Nos.23 and 24 and counsel also submits that FDP was filed and the same was pending for consideration and the suit is filed for the relief of declaration.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents vehemently contend that prior to filing of a suit there was a partition in the year 1948 itself, wherein some of the properties were allotted and counsel also vehemently contend that subsequently this suit schedule property allotted in favour of father of defendant No.3 i.e. K.G.Puttanna in the year of partition of 1948 and also there is subsequent partition of the year 1961. The counsel also vehemently contend that when the plaintiffs themselves have partitioned the property between Indiramma and Lingamma, the said property is not included in the partition and hence though the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case, rejected the application on the ground that no balance of convenience and hence not committed any error.