DEVARAJ Vs. MAYANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS of an original suit bearing O.S. No. 2093/2009 which was pending on the file of the City Civil Court at Bangalore have preferred this appeal under Section 96 of CPC. Suit filed by them for the relief's of partition and separate possession has been dismissed by a considered judgment on 24.02.2011 by the XXXVIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore. It is this judgment which is called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo. The respondent herein was the lone defendant in the said case. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendant as per their ranking given in the Trial Court.

(2.) FACTS leading to the filing of the suit for partition and separate possession are as follows:

(3.) DEFENDANT had leased out southern portion of item No. 1 of the suit schedule property and later on, shifted his residence to the newly constructed house in item No. 2 and then only plaintiffs came to know about the partition deed dated 05.08.1995 in which item No. 2 is not included. Partition deed is void and does not bind him is their averment. Hence, they have sought for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties claiming 1/2 share together in both the items.