M PRITHVIRAJ Vs. LEELAMMA N

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 14,07. 2003 in O. S. No. 305 of 2000 and O. S. No. 567 of 2001 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior division), Mysore, partly decreeing both the suits for partition.

(2.) SUBJECT-MATTER in O. S. No. 305 of 2000 is immovable property bearing No. 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123 and 1452 situated at Vinoba Road, shivaram Pet, Mysore and the subject-matter in O. S. No. 567 of 2001 is property bearing No. 2011 situated at Seebaiah Road, Devaraj Mohalla, mysore (hereinafter referred to as 'schedule properties' ). Appellants are plaintiffs in O. S. No. 305 of 2000 and defendants Nos. 1 to 8 in O. S. No. 567 of 2001. The plaintiffs in O. S. No. 567 of 2001 are defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in O. S. No. 305 of 2000. Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 in O. S. No. 305 of 2000 are purchasers of property situated at Vinoba Road, Shivaram Pet, mysore. Both the suits are for partition. In this judgment the parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court in O. S. No. 305 of 2000.

(3.) PLAINTIFFS contend that K. Doddananjundaiah and Puttamma are husband and wife and they had three daughters by name N. Parvatamma, (mother of plaintiffs), N. Leelamma, (defendant No. 1), and N. Kamalamma (defendant No. 2 ). Puttamma died in the year 1959 and K. Doddananjundaiah died in the year 1969 leaving behind the three daughters as their only legal representatives. The first daughter N. Parvathamma died in the year 1998 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant No. 6 as her legal representatives. The schedule properties are the ancestral properties of K. Doddananjundaiah. Defendant No. 4 falsely claiming to be the adopted son of K. Doddananjundaiah got his name entered in the revenue records in respect of the schedule properties. Defendant No. 4 in connivance with defendant Nos. 1 and 2 sold the property situated at Vinoba Road, Shivaram Pet, Mysore in favour of defendant No. 3 under a registered sale deed dated 14. 04. 1999. Defendant no. 3 inturn sold this property in favour of defendant No. 5. Plaintiffs contend that the sale made by defendant No. 4 in favour of defendant No. 3 and inturn to defendant No. 5 are not binding on them and that despite repeated requests, demands and lawyer's notice, the defendants refused for partition and division of schedule properties. The plaintiffs having no other alternative filed O. S. No. 305 of 2000 for partition and separate possession of their l/3rd share in the schedule property.