MALLIKARJUN S/O SHARANAPPA BIRADAR Vs. SUGALABAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants on admission.

(2.) The present appeal is preferred by defendant No.2 and defendant No.11 before the Trial Court. In this appeal both these appellants challenged the legality and correctness of judgment and decree dated 23.06.2012 passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and also challenged the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in R.A.No.125/2012.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants herein made the submission that the propositus Sharanappagouda sold his share of the property in favour of defendant No.11 under the registered sale deed. The counsel submitted that this defendant No.11 is the son of defendant No.2. It is also his contention that defendant No.4 also sold some of the family properties in favour of defendant No.2 and defendant No.1. Hence, these aspects were not taken into consideration by the Courts below while passing the decree of 1/9th share in favour of the respondent - plaintiff. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is not in accordance with the relevant facts pleaded before the Trial Court. It wrongly proceeded to decree the suit without considering those aspects of the matter and the learned counsel submitted that those properties would have been excluded by the Court below while granting decree in favour of plaintiff which is not done. He also submitted that when the judgment and decree of the Trial Court were taken before the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court also not taken into consideration about the shares and alienation made and without excluding those properties the decree has been granted in respect of all the properties to the extent of 1/9th share in favour of plaintiff. Hence, the counsel submitted that the matter involves substantial questions of law to be enquired in this regular second appeal. Hence, the same may be admitted.