MANEYAPANDA KALAPPA @ RIN Vs. MANEYAPANDA NANJAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were the plaintiffs in OS No 104 of 2004, on the file of Civil Judge (Sr Dn), Virajpet. Being not satisfied with the judgment and decree dated 8-9-2011 passed in the said suit, the plaintiffs have preferred this appeal.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.

(3.) The plaintiffs are the children of defendants 1 and 2. First defendant is the father and the second defendant is the mother. Defendants 3 and 4 are Canara bank and its divisional manager, from whom the defendants 1 and 2 have borrowed a loan. The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession, contending that suit A and B schedule properties are joint family properties. According to them, A schedule property is an ancestral property and out of the income from the A schedule property, the first defendant has purchased the properties mentioned in the schedule B to the plaint in the name of second defendant and therefore the plaintiffs have a right to claim share in all the suit schedule properties. According to them, though there was no need for the defendants 1 and 2 to avail a loan from the Canara bank, the Canara bank, by creating documents, is trying to bring the A and B schedule properties for auction and therefore the suit was filed.