PANDITAPPA AND ORS. Vs. SUSHILAWWA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unsuccessful, regular second appeal filed by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 against the impugned judgment and decree dated 4.6.2014 made in R.A. No. 44/2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jamakhandi confirming the judgment and decree dated 1st April, 2009 made in O.S. No. 77/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Banahatti decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in part by declaring that the plaintiffs are jointly entitled to 1/6th share in the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties, defendant Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 each are entitled for 1/6th share in the suit Schedule properties 'A' and 'B' properties; defendant Nos. 6 to 9 are jointly entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule 'A' and 'B' properties with costs of Rs. 2,000/ - payable by each of defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 10 to the plaintiffs.

(2.) The respondents, who are the plaintiffs before the trial Court filed a suit for partition and separate possession of 1/14th share in respect of the suit schedule properties contending that one deceased Sangappa was the propositus of the plaintiffs' family and defendant Nos. 1 to 9; defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the sons of deceased Sangappa; defendant Nos. 4 and 5 and one deceased Sumitra are the three daughters of the said Sangappa; defendant Nos. 5 to 9 are the sons and daughters of said Sumitra; plaintiff No. 1 is the wife of defendant No. 3; plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 are the sons and defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are the daughters of defendant No. 3 - Basavantappa and defendant Nos. 10 is the intending purchaser of the property from the 2nd defendant. The genealogy reads as under:

(3.) The specific case of the plaintiffs is that the suit 'A' schedule properties are the joint family properties which were purchased out of the joint family funds and earnings of all the joint family members in the name of defendant Nos. 2 - Chandrashekharappa, suit 'B -I' schedule properties are also the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 9 standing in the name of the propositus - Sangappa and there was no partition among the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 9. When defendant Nos. 2 had an intention to alienate the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No. 10, he colluded with the other defendants by creating a false document, plaintiffs demanded for partition against which the defendants refused to effect the partition. Therefore, they were constrained to file a suit.