BASAMMA Vs. MOOKAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel did not report settlement. Defendant 2 in O.S. No. 61 of 2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Challakere, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9-10-2009 declaring that plaintiffs were entitled to half share in the suit schedule property, preferred R.A. No. 90 of 2009 along with the first defendant, whence the Additional Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, by judgment and decree dated 10-2-2010 allowed the appeal in part and declared the appellants entitled to 1/9th share in the suit schedule property, hence this second appeal.

(2.) Regard being had to the undisputed facts that one Chittaiah was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having died intestate, left behind two sons and one daughter viz., Chittaiah, Mookaiah and Basamma, from out of whom, Chittaiah too died leaving behind his widow and children, none other than the plaintiffs, while Mookaiah and Basamma, defendants 1 and 2 respectively claiming declaration, partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties left behind by Chittaiah, the following substantial question of law arise for decision making:

(3.) With the consent of learned Counsel for parties, the appeal is finally heard and disposed of by this order.