BHANUPRIYA Vs. BORAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and declaration is that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 7. It is also contended that the sale deeds dtd. 15/2/2003 and 3/1/2008 executed by defendant Nos.1 to 7 are not binding on the plaintiffs. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. In order to prove the case of the plaintiffs, natural guardian of the plaintiffs examined herself as PW1 and also examined one witness as PW2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P1 to P10 and Ex.P11 is marked by confronting the same to DW1. On the other hand, defendant No.8 is examined as DW1 and also examined one witness as DW2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D1 and D2 and defendant No.3(a) and (b) not led any evidence.

(3.) The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record answered Issue No.1 partly in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties and answered Issue No.2 in the negative with regard to the execution of the sale deeds dtd. 15/2/2003 and 3/1/2008 in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs' father was also a party to the sale deeds and he also joined along with the family members while executing the same. The Trial Court also comes to the conclusion that the father of Mahalingaiah has two wives namely, Chikkatayamma and Boramma. Chikkatayamma is issue less and Boramma has five children and she is still alive and defendant No.1 is the kartha of the family and PW2 pleaded ignorance about the survey numbers and extent of the suit schedule property. The Trial Court taken note of the evidence available on record that defendant No.4 has filed the suit in O.S.No.127/2008 and she denied the suggestion that on 21/4/2007, she has compromised the suit filed in O.S.No.127/2008 with the plaintiffs and she admits that the plaintiffs in the present suit were not parties in O.S.No.127/2008 and deposed that the father of the plaintiffs was party to the said suit. Having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the Trial Court answered Issue No.2 in the negative and also extracted the admission in paragraph No.26 that sale was made for the family necessity, that too in order to purchase the site and the same is discussed in paragraph No. 27 and the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that when the property was sold for family necessity, the contention of the plaintiffs that sale deeds are not biding on the plaintiffs cannot be accepted and hence, dismissed the suit.