NARAYANA Vs. SUDHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

(2.) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 25/2/2019 passed in R.A.No.17/2014 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge and ACJM, Puttur, D.K.

(3.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the suit is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession and it is the claim of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties belongs to the joint family and the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/9th share. It is the contention of defendant No.7 is that there was a oral partition. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P39. On the other hand, the defendants examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D5. The Trial Court considering the both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/9th share in suit 'B' schedule property and the defence of defendant No.7 is answered as negative. Hence, an appeal was filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court also on re- appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence placed on record dismissed the appeal in coming to the conclusion that finding of the Trial Court is not capricious and also not perverse. Hence, the present appeal is filed before this Court.