T.P. MANGALA Vs. PAPASHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant were the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 19 of 2010, on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pandavapura. Being not satisfied with the decree granted to them on 22-10-2011, the present appeal is filed. The facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder:

(2.) Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant had filed an appeal in R.A. No. 95 of 2007, which also came to be dismissed and the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 49 of 2004 has been confirmed by this Court in RSA No. 997 of 2009. After the dismissal of the R.A. the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 4/5th share in the suit schedule 'properties. The first defendant did not contest the case. The second, defendant contested the case contending that the first defendant was not addicted to bad vices and he has agreed to sell the suit time 7 in her favour for a valuable consideration, for the legal necessity of the joint family and in order to overcome the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 49 of 2004, which has been confirmed by this Court in RSA No. 997 of 2000 the plaintiff's have been set up by their father and that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Court below:

(3.) In order to prove their respective contentions the first plaintiff who is also an Advocate was examined as P.W. 1, he had relied upon Exhibits P.Ws. 1 to 13. The second defendant got examined herself as D.W. 1 and she relied upon Exhibits D. 1 to D. 5.