RADHAMMA Vs. H N MUDDUKRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsels on either side.

(2.) THE appellants in R. F. A. No. 347 of 1998 are none other than the plaintiffs and the appellants in R. F. A. No. 922 of 2001 are the defendants before the Trial Court in O. S. No. 9 of 1976. The plaintiffs sought for 1/10th share in all properties described in the schedule to the plaint as 'a' to 'h'. The learned Trial Judge, decreed the suit declaring that second plaintiff is entitled for l/10th share in the plaint 'a' to 'e' schedule property and she is entitled for partition and separate possession of that share in the said property. So far as property 'if schedule is concerned it was declared as the exclusive property of Smt. K. C. Saroja. 'f' and 'g' schedule properties are concerned, the Trial judge held them also against the plaintiffs.

(3.) THE brief facts that led to the filing of the suit by the plaintiffs are is under: plaintiff 1-Smt. Hanumakka is the second wife of late Patel Hanume gowda and second plaintiff is the daughter of late Patel Hanume gowda. First defendant Mr. Narasimhaiah and defendants 2 and 3, smt. Muddamma and Lakshmamma are the daughters of late Hanume gowda through his first wife. Smt. K. C. Saroja is the wife of muddukrishna S/o. Mr. Narasimhaiah. Defendant 5 (c) is the wife of narasimhaiah and other defendants 5 (a), 5 (b) and 5 (g) are the children of late Narasimhaiah.