NEELABAI AND ORS. Vs. CHANNABASAPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellants. Perused the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. The ranks of the parties are retained as per their ranks before the Trial Court in OS No. 107/2003.

(2.) THE plaintiffs 1 to 5 Channabasappa and others have filed a suit seeking partition and possession in the suit schedule properties particularly claiming half share in the suit schedule properties. It is an undisputed fact that plaintiffs 1 to 5 are the brothers and sisters. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are daughters and mother and suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants. The defendants 1 to 3 appeared before the Court and in fact contested the proceedings. They have taken up the contention that suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties and that the defendants 5 to 8 are not entitled for any share and also the defendants 1 & 2 have perfected their right over suit schedule property by adverse possession. It is also claimed by defendant No. 9, after his appearance that there was a oral partition about 35 years prior to the filing of the suit. Therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The defendant No. 9 also taken up the contention that plaintiff No. 1 and his father Shivanna have executed an agreement of sale with respect to their 1/4th share in property No. 114 of Chimmanagi village vide agreement dated 26.12.1975 and put the defendant No. 9 in possession of the same. Therefore, he is entitled for the relief so far as the share of plaintiff No. 1 is concerned.

(3.) WHETHER the defendants No. 5 to 8 prove that they are entitled for 1/4th share in the suit properties?