(1.) defendants 1 and 3 are the appellants. The 1st plaintiff is the mother and plaintiffs-2 to 6 are children. The plaintiffs sought partition of the properties claiming them to be the properties leftbehind by one m.d. ramanna shelly, who died on 2nd seplember, 1979. The isl .plaintiff claims to be the wife of the deceased. The 1sl defendanl also is anolher wife. The 9th defendant is stated to be the 2nd wife, while the 1st plaintiff is stated to be the 3rd wife. Defendants 2 to 8 are the children of the 1sl defendant. Defendants 10 to 12 are the children of one pushpavathi the deceased daughter of the 9th defendant through m.d. ramanna shelly. 6/16th share is claimed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the parlies are governed by the aliyasantana law of inheritance.
(2.) defendants 1 and 3 to 8 filed a common writlen statement. Theyadmilled that ramanna shetty died intestate. However, they denied the slatus of the 1st plainliff and of the 9lh defendanl as the wives of deceased ramanna shelly. According lo them, the husband of 1sl plainliff was one chinnaiah shelly and the husband of the 9th defendant was kittana shelly. They also asserted that they were not in possession of the properties described in the plaint schedules. The 2nd defendant in her written stalemenl contended that ramanna shelly left a will and his properties are to be distributed in terms of the said will. She did not dispute the status of the 1st plaintiff and the 9th defendant. It seems under the will a substantial part of the assets left by ramanna shetty were bequeathed in favour of the 2nd defendant.
(3.) defendants 9 to 12 also support the case of the plainliffs. They asserted that the plaintiffs were already in possession of some of the properties left by ramanna shetty. Defendants 13 to 18 are purchasers of a few items of the property originally belonged to ramanna shetty. It is unnecessary to refer to their statement. The trial court framed the following issues: