N.G. HIRIYANNA Vs. LAKSHMAMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE appellant was Defendant No. 8 in the suit filed by respondents 2 and 3. It was the case of the plaintiffs that property bearing No. 1571 measuring 12.20 mts. East to West and 9.14 mts. North to South, 9' Cross Road, Chandra Layout, Kempapura Agrahara, Vijayanagar, Bangalore, was allotted to late H.P. Gangaiah by the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), which had executed a lease -cum -sale agreement dated 1.12.1998. Gangaiah having died as on 7.9.1999 intestate, the BDA is said to have executed a sale deed in favour of his widow Smt. Lakshmamma. It was the further case of the plaintiffs that they along with Defendants 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7 were the children born to Defendant No. 1 and late H.P. Gangaiah and it was the self -acquired property of H.P. Gangaiah. On his death, they have succeeded to the same and each of them were entitled to one -seventh share. There was no partition effected in the suit properties and the plaintiffs claim that they demanded partition. But though Defendant No. 1 had promised that partition would be effected, it was never done and it is the case of the plaintiffs that they learnt that the defendants had entered into an agreement of sale with the present appellant herein who was Defendant No. 8, agreeing to sell the property in his favour and again, they had protested and approached Defendant No. 1, who did not heed to their request for partition and it is their allegation that without their knowledge, a registered sale deed dated 22.07.2005 had been executed in favour of Defendant No. 8 and therefore, it was not binding on them since they were not signatories to the sale deed and that they had an undivided share in the property as on the date of the sale and sought division of property by metes and bounds.

(3.) TO what other relief -