SHAMBAIAH Vs. MAHADEVAPPA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and he is also the co-parcener. Hence, he is entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. On the other hand, defendant appeared and contended that the plaintiff has duly executed relinquishment deed on 20/5/2000 relinquishing his share in the joint family property of plaintiff and defendant and also contend that he has been adopted one Basappa of Daripura Village and as such he has been severed for member of the family of defendant and Trial Court has given opportunity to both parties to substantiate their contention.

(3.) Plaintiff has been examined as PW1 and got marked the documents Exs.P1 to P6 and defendant No.4 has been examined as DW1 and two other witnesses have also been examined as DWs.2 and 3 and got marked the documents Exs.D1 to D7. The Trial Court having considered the material on record negatived the contention of the defendants with regard to the execution of relinquishment deed as well as he has been adopted to Basappa of Daripur Village and in coming to the conclusion that same has not been proved and having considered the material on record, particularly document Exs.P1 to P6, since there was no dispute with regard to the fact that properties are ancestral properties and the contention that already there was a relinquishment deed has not been proved and hence, the Trial Court considering the material on record accepted the case of the plaintiff and granted the relief of 1/5th share in respect of item Nos.1 and 3 of suit schedule properties and dismissed the suit in respect of item No.2, since the same is acquired by the MUDA and as on the date of filing of the suit, property was not vests with the family. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, plaintiff filed R.A.No.307/2013 in respect of item No.2 is concerned and defendants filed R.A.No.344/2013 and both the appeals are taken together.