AKSHATHA Vs. B BRAHMALINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF 's appeal challenging correctness and legality of the judgment and decree passed by the XLIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore dated 16.02.2013 in O.S.No.5348/2009, whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties came to be decreed in part and held that the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/16th share in item No.1 of suit schedule property and dismissing her claim in respect of item No.2. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the claim insofar item No.2 of the suit schedule property is concerned plaintiff has filed the present appeal.

(2.) THOUGH the matter is listed for admission, by consent of learned advocates appearing for the parties and also in view of the fact that records of the trial Court has been secured, it is taken up for final disposal. I have heard the arguments of Sriyuths Ravi Shankar and R. Jayaprakash for appellant and Sri K.Surya Prakash Rao, for caveator respondent Nos.2, 4, 7 and 8. Respondent Nos.1, 3, 5, 6 and 9 are served and unrepresented. Perused the judgment and decree in question and the records secured from the trial Court.

(3.) IT is the contention of Mr. Ravi Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the trial Court was not justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff insofar as item No.2 of the suit schedule property by concluding that it is a self acquired property of the second defendant without considering the fact that said property had been brought into the joint family property and it was treated as joint family property. Non -consideration of this vital aspect according to him has resulted in miscarriage in the administration of justice and as such he seeks for allowing the appeal by decreeing the suit of the plaintiff insofar as item No.2 of the suit schedule property is concerned.