MANGALA AND ORS. Vs. MALLAPPA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are legal representatives of Ramu Balu Musle. They have assailed judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 5/2006 by the Fast Track and Ad hoc District Judge, Hukkeri, dated 28.07.2010, by which, the judgment of the Civil Judge, (Jr.Dn.) Sankeshwar, dated 4.10.2005 in O.S. No. 113/1998 has been affirmed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to, in terms of their status before the Trial Court.

(3.) The legal representatives of Ramu Balu Musle filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties comprising of agricultural land bearing RS. No. 1/1 situated at Baad village, measuring 3 acres 29 guntas, having two wells and a house property constructed in the suit land. According to the plaintiffs, Balu Musle was the tenant of the suit schedule property and thereafter he purchased it on 24.07.1968 under a registered sale deed for a sum of Rs. 3,300/ - and from the date of purchase, which was done in the name of original propositus, he was in actual possession and enjoyment of the same. Thereafter, his five sons became successors and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. That at the time of purchase of the property, plaintiffs had paid 1/3rd of the sale consideration and others had paid together 2/3rd of the consideration. The properties were purchased in the name of the original propositus Balu Musle and it was treated as a joint family property since 24.07.1968, the date of registration of the said properties in his name. There was an agreement between the father and his sons to divide the property giving the plaintiffs 1/3rd share and the other sons who are his brothers totally 2/3rd share. This agreement was made at the time of purchase of the suit property. But in the year 1980, defendants entered their names in the record of rights which came to the knowledge of the plaintiffs. They filed an appeal on 08.07.1997 before the Tahasildar. The Tahasildar ordered that the rights had to be determined before the Civil Court. Hence, he filed the suit. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the agreement between the original propositus and his sons is binding on all the sons.