GOWRAMMA Vs. SURESHA

JUDGEMENT

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

(2.) The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court that the plaintiff No.1 who is the wife of Lingegowda and also three daughters have filed the suit for the relief of partition and separate possession claiming that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties and also contend that they are entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession. Defendant No.2 who appeared before the Court has filed the written statement contending that he is the bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property and suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the plaintiffs are not entitled for 1/5th share as claimed in the plaint. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. PW1 who is the wife of Lingegowda examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P47. On the other hand, defendant No.2 examined as DW1 and two witnesses examined as DW2 and DW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D22. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record comes to the conclusion that the sale was made for the legal necessities and in order to prove that remaining properties are ancestral and joint families properties, no document is placed on record and the Trial Court held that only with an intention to make wrongful gain, in collusion with defendant No.1, the suit is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession and the Trial Court also taken note of admission elicited from the mouth of witness - PW1 who categorically admitted that property was sold for clearing the loan and the same is for legal necessity and hence, dismissed the suit.