SHIVALINGAIAH Vs. G S VEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred by the appellants -defendants 3, 4 and 5 challenging the judgment and decrees passed by the Courts below.

(2.) Respondent No.1 herein and one G.S.Shivakumar being the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession of all the suit schedule properties. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.2 are the children of defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the children of defendant No.3. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 are brothers. Defendants 7 and 8 are the purchasers of suit schedule item Nos.4 and 5 from defendant No.3. It is the case of defendant No.3 that defendant No.1 was residing at Kolgatta village since last 25 years after his marriage and defendant No.3 being the Manager of the family was looking after the affairs of the suit schedule property. It is also the contention of defendant No.3 that defendant No.1 when he went to Kolgatta village in 1969 to look after the properties of his father -in -law, subsequently, he executed release deed in favour of defendant No.1. It is also his further contention that the properties at Kolgatta were not at all included in this suit. Therefore the suit for partial partition is not at all maintainable. So far as suit schedule item Nos.2, 4 and 5 are concerned, it is contended that the suit of the plaintiffs is barred by limitation. Considering these pleadings, the trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs only in respect of suit schedule item Nos.1 and 3 and dismissed the suit so far as suit schedule item Nos.2, 4 and 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the appellants herein have preferred R.A.No.125/2007. The first appellate Court, after re - appreciating the entire material on record both oral as well as documentary, dismissed the appeal with cost confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants herein who are defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 have preferred the present appeal.

(3.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein on admission.