LAXMAPPA GONEPPA Vs. BHIMAPPA GONEPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is defendant No. 1 against whom a suit in ejectment was brought by respondent No. 1, the suit also being against defendants Nos. 2 and 3, the sons of defendant No. 1.

(2.) The plaintiff's case was that defendant No. 1 was his elder brother, that the property in suit, which is a house, was part of his ancestral property, that there was a partition between him and defendant No. 1 on October 7, 1925, when the house in suit and other properties were allotted to him, defendant No. 1 getting a smaller house to the south of his house, but that defendant No. 1 was allowed to remain in the house in suit because he wanted to celebrate the marriage of his sons and promised to give it up on constructing a new house. He brought the suit practically on the last date of the period of limitation from the date of the partition. Defendant No. 1 denied that there was a partition in 1925, but he alleged that there was a partition in 1926 in which the house in suit fell to his own share. He also denied the other allegations of the plaintiff.

(3.) The trial Court found that the plaintiff had proved his case and made a decree in his favour for possession and mesne profits. The lower appellate Court also held that the plaintiff's case was proved and that the defendants case was not proved, and accordingly, dismissed the appeal.