GANGANAGOUDA AND ORS. Vs. SHANKARAGOUD AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the defendants second appeal directed against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of half share in the joint family properties, which have been shown in the suit schedule properties. In the said suit schedule properties some properties are located at Chilakamukki village and some are located at Bevoor village. The defendants resisted the suit denying the plaint averments. After considering the material evidence on record the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for, against which the defendants preferred appeal before the lower appellate Court and the same was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The said judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court is impugned in this second appeal.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that there was a partition in the year 1982 between the original plaintiff and defendants. Secondly, it is contended that Bevoor properties are the joint family properties and a partition was effected and a wardi was given to the village accountant and as per the said wardi the mutation entries were changed allotting shares in favour of the original plaintiffs and defendants. Thirdly, it is contended that some properties of Chilakamukki i.e., Sy. No. 51 was purchased by Sri Buddanagouda, the father of the original defendants and the other properties in Chilakamukki village were the stridhana properties of the mother of the original plaintiff and the defendants father. The plaintiff had relinquished the rights on these Chilakamukki properties through a relinquishment deed and subsequent to the said relinquishment, mutation entries were changed. The Exs. D.1 to D.7 produced before the trial Court coupled with the oral evidence of the parties prove that the plaintiff was not entitled to half share in all the suit properties as prayed for. The Courts below without appreciating the documentary as well as oral evidence decreed the suit.