BARIKARA RAMAPPA DEAD BY L.RS K. CHANDRAMMA, K. SURESH, K. SUDHIR AND K. SUNIL Vs. BARIKARA EAKANTHAPPA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal representatives of the deceased defendant have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree of partition confirmed in an appeal by the First Appellate Court, on the proceedings of the suit instituted by the deceased first respondent herein. The facts in brief are as under: Parties will be referred as per their rank before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience. The deceased first respondent was the plaintiff whereas the appellants herein are LRs of first defendant and respondents 2 and 3 herein are defendants 2 and 3 in the Trial Court. The deceased plaintiff, first defendant so also defendants 2 and 3 are the brothers and sisters. The plaintiffs claimed their share in the suit properties which are said to be the joint family properties of the parties, their father died about 15 years prior to the institution of suit. As the first defendant did not give share, the suit came to be instituted for partition and separate possession. Defendants 1 and 3 filed the written statement denying the averments made and it is the specific contention of the first defendant that the suit properties are the self -acquired properties and were purchased by him from his own income derived from the service that he was rendering in the Government Department. It was also his contention that though his father owned his properties prior to 1948, they were sold by him and he re -purchased the said properties under a registered sale deed dated 20.08.1971. Therefore, he pleaded that as the suit properties are his self -acquired properties and the question of granting share to the plaintiff does not arise. On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the issues and on behalf of the plaintiff his wife PW -1 was examined in addition to examining two witnesses as PW -2 and PW -3 and documents Ex.P1 to P5 were marked. No oral evidence was lead by the defendants. Anyhow, they got marked Exs.D1 and D3, the documents in the cross -examination of PW -1. The Trial Court after hearing the counsel and on appreciation of the evidence on record, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants 1 and 3 preferred an appeal in R.A. No. 50/2004. The said appeal is also dismissed affirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of both the Courts bellow, the present appeal has been filed. The appellant has also filed I.A. No. 1/2008 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking permission to produce certain documents.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the both the parties.

(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment and decree and also submits that there is no substantial question of law for consideration.