LAWS(KAR)-2025-1-126

GOURAMMA Vs. MANJAMMA

Decided On January 15, 2025
Gouramma Appellant
V/S
MANJAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the defendants assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 18/2/2015 in R.A.No.9/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur (for short "the First Appellate Court") confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 21/12/2013 in O.S.No.101/2013 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur (for short "the Trial Court") decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

(3.) The plaintiffs have filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration with consequential relief of injunction in respect of the subject matter of the land in question against the defendants stating that, as per the registered partition deed dtd. 4/12/1996 between the father of plaintiff No.2 to 4 and husband of the plaintiff No.1-Sri.Narasappa with the father of defendant No.5 to 8 and husband of defendant No.1- Sri.Gadigeppa Siddappa Keggannavar and therefore, as the partition had taken place as per the registered partition deed, despite the said fact the defendants are interfering with the right of the plaintiffs and as such, the plaintiffs have filed O.S.No.101/2013 before the Trial Court. 3.1. The defendants entered appearance before the Trial Court, however have not filed written statement and contested the matter by adducing evidence. The Trial Court, based on the evidence of PW1 and the documents produced at Ex.P1 and Ex.P2, by its judgment and decree dtd. 21/12/2013 decreed the suit holding that the plaintiffs are the owners in possession of the suit schedule property. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed R.A.No.9/2014 before the First Appellate Court and same was resisted by the plaintiffs. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dtd. 18/2/2015 dismissed the appeal and consequently confirmed the judgment and decree in O.S.No.101/2013. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal is preferred by the defendants.