BASAVANTHAPPA Vs. PREMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the lone defendant of an original suit bearing no. 53/99 which was pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dvn.), Hubli, has filed this second appeal. Respondents herein were the plaintiffs in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendant as per their ranking given in the trial Court. Facts leading to the filing of the suit are as under.

(2.) ONE person by name Prakash Muragod was the husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 4. The said Prakash is no more. According to the plaintiffs, the said Prakash and defendant -appellant were doing the business in rolling shutters jointly and out of the income derived from the joint business, both of them had jointly purchased 1.06 acres of land in Sy. No. 26 and 18 guntas of land in Sy. No. 254 of Kadanakoppa village and Anchatageri village respectively and they have been described as suit schedule properties. The said Prakash died on 24.02.1997. After his death plaintiffs inherited his undivided share and thus they have become the joint owners of these properties. According to the plaintiffs, defendants laid a claim that both these properties were his self acquired properties and intended to sell them. Hence they had to file a suit seeking half share and for demarcation of their shares by metes and bounds.

(3.) DEFENDANTS appeared and filed written statements denying all the material averments found in the plaint. It is his case that item no. 1 measuring 1.06 acres is the property purchased by his father Vanagodappa Raichura and that he is the absolute owner of the same. According to him Prakash had already sold his undivided share in respect of 18 guntas, i.e., suit item no. 2. It is further pleaded that he had to withdraw the suit filed in O.S. No. 642/93 against these plaintiffs on the assurance given by the plaintiffs for an amicable settlement. The document dated 5.3.95 relied upon by the plaintiffs is stated to be a fraudulent document and hence plaintiffs suit was false and frivolous. With these pleadings he had prayed for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the above pleadings following issues came to be framed: