LAWS(KAR)-2014-1-110

M.D. HARIJYOTHI KUMAR Vs. MASTER R. ABHISHEK

Decided On January 16, 2014
M.D. Harijyothi Kumar and Robin Prakash Appellant
V/S
Master R. Abhishek and Smt. M.D. Sudhamani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT Nos. 1 and 2 in O.S. No. 801/2007 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysore, have come up in this second appeal impugning the concurrent finding of both the Courts below in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property.

(2.) THE admitted facts are that the father of first plaintiff and husband of second plaintiff, namely Rathna Kumar is one of the sons of deceased R. Vasanth Raju @ R.V. Raju, who was the sole and absolute owner of residential property bearing No. 102 situated at 12th Cross, 4th Main, Fort Mohalla, Vidyaranya Puram, Mysore, which is morefully described in the schedule in the original suit. Further the undisputed fact is that R.V. Raju had in all three sons, i.e., aforesaid late R. Vasanth Raju and defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the original suit. R.V. Raju, who is owner of the suit schedule property died intestate on 16.12.2000. Thereafter the present suit for partition is filed in the year 2007 in O.S. No. 801/2007, wherein the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 sought for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property and also for cost of the suit.

(3.) HEARD the counsel for appellants. Perused the Judgments of both the Courts below. On going through the same, this Court is of the opinion that decreeing of the suit filed by the plaintiffs in granting 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property in favour of plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and that the finding of the Trial Court and as well as the Lower Appellate Court in not accepting Ex.D -1, unregistered relinquishment deed by the second defendant on her behalf and as well as her minor son, first defendant in the original suit, is inadmissible. As against the concurrent finding of both the Courts below, no grounds are made out to admit this second appeal inasmuch as no substantial question of law arise for consideration. Accordingly the same is dismissed, without any order as to costs.