(1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree dated 14.07.2003 in O.S. No. 305/2000 and O.S. No. 567/2001 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mysore, partly decreeing both the suits for partition.
(2.) SUBJECT matter in O.S. No. 305/2000 is immovable property bearing No. 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123 and 1452 situated at Vinoba Road, Shivaram Pet, Mysore and the subject matter in O.S. No. 567/2001 is property bearing No. 2011 situated at Seebaiah Road, Devaraj Mohalla, Mysore (hereinafter referred to as 'schedule properties'). Appellants are plaintiffs in O.S. No. 305/2000 and defendants Nos. 1 to 8 in O.S. No. 567/2001. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 567/2001 are defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in O.S. No. 305/2000. Defendant Nos. 3 and 5 in O.S. No. 305/2000 are purchasers of property situated at Vinoba Road, Shivaram pet, Mysore. Both the suits are for partition. In this judgment the parties are referred to by their status before the trial Court in O.S. No. 305/2000.
(3.) DEFENDANTS contend, that after the demise of first wife Puttamma in the year 1959 K. Doddananjundaiah took Yashodamma as his second wife on 29.03.1960 and through her defendant No. 4 was bom on 16.10.1961. Defendants contend that Yashodamma is legally wedded by K. Doddananjundaiah and as such the defendant No. 4 was their legal son. That during the life time of K. Doddananjundaiah defendant No. 4, his mother and family of plaintiffs were residing together in the house situated at Seebaiah Road, Devaraj Mohalla, Mysore, Whereas K. Doddananjundaiah's second wife Yashodamma executed a registered settlement deed dated 16.04.1971 settling the schedule properties in favour of her son - defendant No. 4 and the Defendant No. 4 intum sold the schedule property situated at Shivarama Pet, Mysore in favour of defendant No. 3 and who in turn sold the same in favour of defendant No. 5. The defendants further contend, that they are having a right in the property situated at Seebaiah Road, Devaraj Mohalla, Mysore and are entitled for a share in the said property. Therefore the defendants were obliged to file O.S. No. 567/2001 against the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of plaint schedule property.