SUDHAKARA MANOLITHAYA Vs. PREMALATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A.S.No. 336 of 1984 is by defendants 1, 2 and 4 and A.S.No.389 of 1984 is by 3rd defendant against the preliminary decree and judgment.

(2.) The facts in brief are as follows:

(3.) Defendants 1, 2 and 4 in their written statement and additional written statement contended that Krishna Manolithaya executed Ext.B3 will validly, he had disposing capacity. The 'X' schedule items 2 and 3 were got assigned on dharkhast utilising 1st defendant's funds and therefore the same is not partible. They also contended that the 'X' schedule item No.1 in the written statement was obtained on dharkhast by the 3rd defendant and therefore the same exclusively belongs to her and that the properties comprised in 'Y' schedule in the written statement were outstanding in lease; the 3rd defendant obtained Exts.B4 to B7 assignments and later she obtained Ext.B8 purchase certificate. Therefore, according to them those items also are not partible. It is further contended by them that, the 'Z' and 'ZZ' schedules in their written statement are outstanding on lease and applications by tenants for assignment are pending before the Tribunal.