ANNES FATIMA Vs. TULSIRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - plaintiff on admission.

(2.) This appeal is preferred challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court dtd. 7/12/2010 passed by the Sr.Civil Judge, Basavakalyan in O.S.No.49/2004, which is confirmed by the Fast Track Court, Basavakalyan by its judgment dtd. 26/2/2013 in R.A.No.3/2011. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the suit of the plaintiff was taken before the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same and also challenging the legality and correctness of the Judgments and decrees of the Courts below the appellants are before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal on the grounds as mentioned in the appeal memorandum.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants - defendants in this regular second appeal during the course of argument made submission that before filing the said suit no notice was issued by the respondent. It is also his contention that looking to the agreement of sale deed time was fixed in this case that sale deed is to be executed within three years. The suit was not brought within the said period of limitation, the suit is barred by limitation. The third contention raised by the learned counsel that the parties are Mohammedans mother cannot act as a minor guardian of other minor defendants. The learned counsel submitted that, all these aspects are not at all considered by the Courts below and both the Courts have wrongly read the evidence and wrongly proceeded to decree the suit. Hence, the substantial questions of law involved in this appeal and hence, the same may be admitted.