MANJAVVA AND OTHERS Vs. HANUMANTAPPA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranebennur ('lower appellate Court' for short) in R.A.No.44/2015 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Prl. Civil Judge and I Addl. JMFC, Ranebennur, ('trial Court' for short) in O.S.No. 114/2013 is confirmed.

(2.) Plaintiffs' filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their share in respect of suit properties, inter alia, contending that the original propositus of plaintiffs and defendants family is one Ujjappa, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and deceased Revaneppa are the children of propositus Ujjappa. Plaintiffs/appellants herein are the daughters of defendant No. 1. Defendant Nos. 4 to 6 are the legal heirs of deceased Revanneppa. Thus, it was contended that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and they are in joint possession of these properties along with defendants. On service of summons, the defendants 1, 2, 4 to 6 entered appearance through their counsel and filed written statement. Defendant No. 3 was placed exparte. On the basis of the pleadings, issues were framed. On appreciation of evidence, trial Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved, plaintiffs' preferred appeal before the lower appellate Court, which came to be dismissed concurring with the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved, plaintiffs are in second appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel Sri. Mahesh Wodeyar, appearing for plaintiffs/appellants would contend that the plaintiffs have produced substantial documents on record to show that the suit properties were joint family properties and they have right in the said suit properties. Both Courts failed to appreciate the same and it is based only on some stray admissions made by the plaintiffs, proceeded to record a finding that there was oral partition and it was acted upon by the parties, which is wholly untenable. There being no registered partition deed to establish the factum of partition of the joint family, the wrong conclusion arrived at by the Courts below has resulted in miscarriage of justice. It is further contended that any alienation of the joint family properties made by the defendants is not binding on the plaintiffs. However, the Courts below proceeded to give a finding that a oral partition was acted upon denying the claim of the plaintiffs, who are the daughters of defendant No.1.