KHERUBA ALIAS KHIRUBA Vs. APPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No.19/2011 on the file of II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) Bijapur, who also failed in his attempt to succeed in R.A. No.95/2008 on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bijapur has preferred this Regular Second Appeal.

(2.) I would like to retain the ranks of the parties as per their ranks before the trail Court.

(3.) THE plaintiffs Kheruba and Jayappa are the sons of one Kondiba Mane filed a suit in O.S. No.19/2001 as noted above against the defendants (respondents herein) for declaration and for injunction with respect to the land bearing survey No.323 measuring 5 acres of Madabhavi village. It is specifically shown in the letters A, B, C and D in the hand sketch appended to the plaint. As per the exposition of facts narrated in the plaint, it is alleged that the plaintiffs who are the sons of one Kondiba S/o Shivaba Mane of Bhuranapur village, defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the brothers of said Kondiba and defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the sons of another brother Revaji Mane of said Kondiba. The father of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and also father of defendant Nos.3 and 4 had 1/4 equal share in their ancestral joint family properties bearing survey No.323 of Madabhavi village alognwith survey No.160, 161, 164, 163 and 165 of Bhuranapur village. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that there was a partition of joint family in the year 1973. In the said partition father of the plaintiffs acquired his share 5 acre of land in survey No.323 of Madabhavi village, which is specifically shown as A, B, C and D in the plaint sketch. It is also alleged that the northern portion of survey No.323 measuring 5 acres fallen to the share of father of defendant Nos.3 and 4 and southern portion measuring 5 acres 17 guntas fallen to the share of defendant No.1. The land bearing survey No.323 was purchased by the father of the plaintiffs and his brother in the year 1964 from its previous owner one Sangappa S/o Ramappa Talawar for a consideration of Rs.4,000/ -. It is admitted that the father of the plaintiffs died in the year 1975 after the alleged partition in the year 1973. Therefore it is contended that by virtue of the partition, plaintiffs have become absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.