NAGAPPA Vs. SHIVALINGAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 3 and 4 in original suit bearing O.S. No. 82 of 2007 which was pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jamkhandi sitting at Mudhol have filed this appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 183 of 2009. Respondents 1 to 10 herein were defendants 1(A) to 1(1) and plaintiff 2 in the said case. Respondents 11 and 12 were defendants 1 and 2 in the said case. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their ranking in the Trial Court.

(2.) Plaintiff and defendant 1 are children of one Hanumant Dhanagar. Suit schedule property described in the schedule appended in the plaint measuring 2 acres 28 guntas is in Mirji Village of Mudhol Taluk. It is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendant 1. Defendant 2 is the wife of defendant 1 and both of them have sold the entire suit schedule property in favour of defendants 3 and 4 to an extent of 1 acre and 1 acre 28 guntas through separate sale deeds dated 13-8-2007 respectively. It is this alienation which is called in question by filing a suit for partition and separate possession of 2/6th share. Defendant 1 has filed written statement but did not lead any evidence. Defendant 4 had filed written statement by contesting the suit.

(3.) Defendant 1's case a put forth in his written statement, is that the alienation has been made for the purpose of family necessity. According to defendants 3 and 4 suit is time barred. With these pleadings they had requested the Court to dismiss the suit.