(1.) Both these appeals have been filed under Section 96 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.14/1996 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Koppal. Plaintiff Smt.Parvatewwa in the said suit has filed appeal in RFA No.1642/2005. Defendant Nos.1a to 1c, the legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1-Eshwarappa, have filed connected appeal in RFA No.1238/2005. Defendant No.2-Prabhuraj has joined legal representatives of deceased defendant No.1 in filing the appeal in RFA No.1238/2005. The said suit has been decreed granting 1/3rd share to the plaintiff in all the suit properties.
(2.) Deceased defendant No.1-Eshwarappa is the only brother of the plaintiff. He died during the pendency of the appeal and his wife and children have come on record. Defendant No.2 is the son of deceased defendant No.1- Eshwarappa. He is aggrieved insofar as it relates to the grant of 1/3rd share to the plaintiff. According to him, item Nos.2 and 3 have been sold by him and his father for legal necessity, as Eshwarappa was having serious medical problems and therefore, substantial amount of money was spent for his cardiac treatment in Jaidev Hospital at Bangalore. According to the plaintiff, all the schedule properties are the self-acquired properties and therefore she is entitled for half share. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 had taken up a specific stand that they are absolute owners of the suit schedule properties. According to them, item Nos.2 and 3 were sold for family necessity. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for any share.
(3.) Defendant Nos.3 to 6 have purchased item Nos.2 and 3 through four separate sale deeds for total consideration of Rs.2,44,000/-. According to them, they are bone fide purchasers for value after making valid enquiries about the existence of the family necessity. They have further averred that suit is not maintainable as all the joint family properties are included in this suit. They have alternatively averred that in case suit were to be decreed, the properties so purchased by them be allotted to their vendor, i.e., defendant No.2 son of deceased defendant No.1. On the basis of the above pleadings, following issues came to be framed.