(1.) two issues, both of which are of slightly unusual complexion, have been canvassed by the parties to this appeal. The first of them, strangely enough concerns the question of the identity of plaintiff 1's sisters, in so far as the defendants who are the second wife and the children have contended that whereas plaintiff 1 was the son of the deceased g.v. balakrishna, that he was the only child and that the sisters who are today arraigned as co-plaintiffs either personally or through their l.rs. Are impostors. The learned trial judge has accepted them to be as genuinely belonging to the family and has therefore upheld a claim for a share in the property of deceased balakrishna. The issue that is seriously debated centres around the question as to whether, in the face of the stand taken by the defendants, the plaintiffs have succeeded in establishing their identity. The allied issue that falls for determination is the question as to whether, the property that is now in dispute, which admittedly was purchased by deceased balakrishna through a registered sale deed on 14-10-1959 in his name and in the name of his wife, is to be treated as property individually belonging to him or whether only one-half share in that property is to be treated as his for purposes of the present dispute.
(2.) the brief facts surrounding this dispute need to be summarised. The plaintiff 1 and his sisters filed o.s. No. 8471 of 1980 before the city civil court at bangalore claiming 3/7th share in the suit schedule property belonging to their late father g.v. balakrishna. They had claimed partition and separate possession of their respective shares as also future mesne profits. The defendants to the suit are the second wife and her sons. It was contended by the original plaintiffs that despite having demanded their rightful entitlements, that the defendants declined to give them their rightful share of the property which was why they had approached the court. The defendants, interestingly enough, accepted the fact that plaintiff 1 is the son of balakrishna through the deceased first wife and conceded the position that he would be entitled to a share in the property. They however seriously disputed the very existence of the co-plaintiffs. In effect, they have contended that plaintiff 1 was the only child of the first wife and that the remaining plaintiffs have been set up to make a false claim in respect of the property and that they are not the daughters of balakrishna and deceased pillamma. It was also contended that it was incorrect to contend that the property belonged exclusively to balakrishna because, the registered sale deed very clearly indicated that it was purchased by both husband and wife and that therefore, the second wife nagamma was a one-half owner of that property. The defendants contend that deceased balakrishna had purchased the property out of the joint family assets to the extent of one-half share and that the other half of the consideration for the purchase had been contributed by his wife nagamma out of her stridhana. It was therefore submitted that the property for apportionment was only one-half share and not the whole of the property and secondly that only plaintiff 1 was entitled to claim the share. The learned trial judge has completely rejected the defence and has held that the plaintiffs collectively are entitled to claim 3/7th share in the whole of the property. This appeal is directed against that decree.
(3.) the learned advocates representing the parties have relied on the record which consists of the pleadings, the oral evidence of only two witnesses namely one on the side of the plaintiff and one on the side of the defendants as also the sale deed dated 14-10-1959. The basic controversy in the first instance centres around the question as to the number of sharers. The plaintiff No. 1's share though being admitted, the learned trial judge after assessing the evidence observed in passing that it was too far-fetched for anybody to accept the contention that the co-plaintiffs would falsely contend that they are the daughters of balakrishna only in Order to try and claim a share in the property if they are in fact not his real daughters and that consequently, their claim requires to be upheld. This aspect of the matter, however, has been seriously agitated and it therefore requires to be decided.