KALAMMA Vs. SIDDAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 in O.S. 40/1996 on the file of the I Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 4.9.2007 declaring that the 1st respondent is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties, preferred R.A. No. 134/2007 before the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District,. Bangalore, which, when dismissed by Judgment and decree dated 20.1.2009 have presented this second appeal. Respondents instituted O.S. 40/1996 for declaration, partition and separate possession of certain immovable properties arraigning the 1st and 2nd appellants as defendants 2 and 3, while respondents 2 to 5 as defendant No. 1, Defendant No. 4 and Defendants No. 4(a) and (b), respectively. Plaintiff asserted that the 1st defendant is her sibling and children of one Doddamuniyappa, while defendants 2, 3 and 4 are the legal representatives of one Chikkamuniyappa, who were brothers and sons of one Byranna.

(2.) APPELLANTS arraigned as defendants 2 and 3 opposed the suit asserting that there was an oral partition as between Chikkamuniyappa and late Doddamuniyappa, following which 1st defendant executed a sale deed Ex. D1, while plaintiff and 1st defendant jointly executed a sale deed Ex D2 conveying certain immovable properties.

(3.) IT is the submission of Sri. R.B. Sadashivappa, learned counsel for the appellants that although the explanation to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 consequent upon the Amendment Act 2005, the word 'partition' is explained to mean any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908 or partition effected by a decree of Court, nevertheless the oral partition having been effected much prior to the coming into force of Amendment Act 2005, parties are bound by the said oral partition and not governed by the Amendment Act.