RAMACHANDRAPPA Vs. SUSEELAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff who has lost before the Courts below has preferred the Second Appeal.

(2.) Resisting the suit, denying the facts leading to cause of action in the suit, the defendants have contested that the first defendant was married only after Act 1 of 1990 came into force. Hence, she is entitled for share in the property. The defendants pleaded ignorance about the partition dated 20.05.2004. As the defendants were not parties to the partition, it is not binding on them. It is stated that the Plaintiff's mother Muniyamma purchased the extent of 238 acres in S.No.194/2, from one Thimmaiah and later in S.No.194/2, she had executed the settlement deed in respect of 1.50 acres in favour of the defendants 1, 3 and 5. Out of the balance, an extent of 50 cents was sold by her to Mohan and the remaining 19 cents were acquired by the Government for laying road. The suit was said to be bad for non joinder of parties for not impleading Mohan and Muniamma and hence the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) Before the trial Court, Exs.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the Plaintiff Exs.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the Defendants and none examined on either side. The trial Court, after analysing the evidence had dismissed the suit and aggrieved against the same an appeal in A.S.No.23 of 2015 was filed and the same was also dismissed. As against the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed.