REVANAPPA VEERAPPA ANGADI Vs. GANGAVVA VEERABHADRAPPA ANGADI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal fi led under Section 100 of CPC by the 1st defendant of an original suit bearing O.S.No.36/1990, which was pending on the file of the Court of Munsiff, Hirekerur. Respondents 1 to 6 were plaintiffs in the said suit. The remaining respondents were the defendants in the said suit. Parties wi l l be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their ranking given in the trial Court.

(2.) A suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs claiming partition and separate possession of the properties described in the schedule appended to the plaint on the ground that the earlier partition effected in 1980 is no partition in the eye of law more particularly the daughters of late Veerappa and Puttavva being not given any share. The first defendant had contested the suit stating that there was already an earlier partition and being acted upon by the parties. Therefore the suit filed by the plaintiff being a signatory to the said partition deed is not maintainable. Ultimately suit came to be decreed as prayed for holding that there was no legal partition in the eye of law more particularly the said partition deed being unregistered document having partition. The trial Court has held that the said document of partition of 1986 marked as Ex.P.9 is not acted upon. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues came to be framed by the trial Court.

(3.) GANGAVVA , first plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and Kusumawwa is examined as P.W.2. In all 9 exhibits have been got marked. On behalf of the defendants, 5 witnesses have been examined. Ultimately, the suit came to be decreed vide considered judgment dated 30.03.1992 holding that plaintiff nos.1 to 7 are jointly entitled for 12/55th share, plaintiffs 8 to 11 are jointly entitled for 12/55th share in suit item nos.1 to 7 properties. It is further held that there will be separate enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 (c) CPC to ascertain mesne profits. As against the said judgment and decree an appeal came to be filed u/S 96 of the CPC by the first defendant -Revenappa before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Ranebennur in R.A. No. 122/1992. Several grounds had been urged in the appeal memo. After hearing the arguments and perusing the records, the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal vide considered judgment dated 04.02.2004. It is these concurrent findings which are called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo.