PATEL CHANDRAPPA Vs. HANUMANTHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by defendants 1 and 2 is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17-9-1987 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bhadravathi in O.S. No. 69 of 1982. At the stage of admission, respondents 1 to 4 and 6 have put in appearance through a counsel. Respondents 5 and 7 are neither served nor represented. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the appeal can be disposed of at this stage as the modification of the decree agreed to by the plaintiffs 1 to 4 (respondents 1 to 4 in the appeal) does not affect the appellants and respondents 5, 6 and 7. On the contrary, it will benefit respondent Nos. 5 and 6 (plaintiff Nos. 5 and 6), therefore, we have dispensed with the service of notice on respondents 5 and 7 and heard the appeal.

(2.) The suit was filed for partition and separate possession of 22/26th share in the suit properties mentioned in suit schedules 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D', and mesne profits from the date of the suit till the date of the delivery of possession. The trial Court has decreed the suit in the following terms; "In the result, the suit of the plaintiffs is hereby decreed with cost. Each plaintiff 1 to 4 and defendant Nos. 1 and 3 are entitled to l/6th share each in the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule landed house properties and item Nos. 1 to 15 and 26 of Ex. P. 33 inventory list of movables by metes and bounds by way of partition and separate possession. Plaintiffs 1 to 4, defendant Nos. 1 and 3 each is entitled to l/6th share in the sale proceeds in deposit in this Court also. The partition of plaint 'A' schedule landed properties shall be effected by sending the decree to the Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga, as required under Section 54 C.P.C. The suit schedule 'B' properties and the moveables at item Nos. 1 to 15 and 26 of inventory list Ex. P. 33 shall be effected by appointing a Court Commissioner. Ex.P. 33 inventory list shall be the part and parcel of the decree. Accordingly draw preliminary decree."

(3.) The relationship between the parties is not is dispute. Defendant No. 1 who is appellant No. 1 in the appeal is the father of plaintiffs 1 to 6 and defendant No. 3 who are respondents 1 to 6 and respondent No. 7 respectively in the appeal. Defendant No. 1 also claims to be the husband of defendant No. 2 who is appellant No. 2 in the appeal.