MUNISHAMMAPPA Vs. BASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Munegowda is the propositus. He had two sons. Anjinappa and Munishamappa. Plaintiff No.1 is the only daughter of Munishamappa. Anjinappa had one son and two daughters. Son is the defendant No.1 who died during the pendency of the suit. Through his first wife Akkamma, he had two sons and one daughter, that is defendants 2,3 and 4. Through his second wife Dodda Akkammayya, he had three children, namely, plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4. That there was a demand for partition among the family members of the suit schedule properties. That in the year 2001, due to some disturbance between the family members, a Panchayat Parikath was entered into on a Stamp paper, under the interference of the elders and well wishers of the family. The case of the plaintiffs is that without their consent or acceptance, the document was drafted and important and major properties were allotted to defendants 2 and 3. There was an improper allotment of shares to the plaintiffs. That they have not accepted the said partition made in the Panchayat. Inspite of making several demands, their rightful share was not given to them. Hence the instant suit was filed seeking partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties claiming 1/8th share of the same. On service of notice, the defendants entered appearance and denied the suit claim. Defendants 2 and 3 filed a common written statement. They took up a plea that the prior partition of the suit schedule properties was effected in the year 2001. That in terms whereof, the suit schedule properties were distributed amongst all the family members. That some of them have also entered their names in the revenue records. Some of them have also sold the shares allotted to them. Hence, they sought for dismissal of the suit.

(2.) On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following Issues:-

(3.) Whether plaintiffs suit valuation is not correct?