BHEEMASHANKAR AND ORS. Vs. SURESH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R .F.A. No. 1275/2007 is preferred by appellant/defendant No. 8 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated : 28 -02 -2007 passed by the Civil Judge Sr. Dn. Basavan Bagewadi, in O.S. No. 01/2005.

(2.) R .F.A. Crob. No. 27/2007 is preferred by respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiffs challenging the finding of the trial court that the alienation made by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 are for the family necessity and benefit of the estate.

(3.) THE brief facts leading to the case before the trial court is that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in R.F.A. No. 1275/2007 filed the suit before the trial court for the relief of declaration to declare that the sale deed executed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 dated : 5 -1 -2002 in favour of the appellant/defendant No. 8 with respect to the land sy. No. 9/2B measuring 4 -acres is not binding on the rights of the plaintiffs and for partition and separate possession of their 1/9th share by metes and bonds. Propositus of the family of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 7 before the trial court is one Bhimshi, who died on 23 -9 -1998 leaving behind his wife, the first respondent herein and appellants in cross appeal and respondent Nos. 2 to 7 as his legal heirs. The appellants in cross appeal who were original plaintiffs and respondent Nos. 1 to 7 who were the original defendants in the suit succeeded to the suit property. During the lifetime of Bhimshi, he was enjoying the suit property as manager of the joint family and had constructed a farm house in the suit land. After the death of Bhimshi, Yeshwanth, the elder son who was the defendant No. 2 in the suit started to look after the affairs of the family and subsequently he being addicted to bad habits, mis -managed the properties and executed the sale deed in favour of the appellant/defendant No. 8 behind the back of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 7. It was not for family necessity and same is not binding on them. Appellants in the cross appeal came to know about the said illegal transaction only when the appellant/defendant No. 8 came to the suit property. Hence immediately, the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 before the trial court demanded their share and filed the suit for declaration and partition.