KALLAPPA BALAPPA DESHNUR Vs. SHATTU YALLAPPA DESHNUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree passed in RA No.779/2009 (Old No.29/2004) dated 11.11.2014 on the file of the Presiding Officer, FTC-I and District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellants herein has been dismissed confirming the order passed in FDP No.16/1981 dated 7.11.2003 by the I Addl. Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Belagavi.

(2.) One Sri. Yallappa was the propositus of the properties in question. Yallappa had two sons namely Rama and Shattu. Rama had one son by name Irappa. Irappa's children are respondent Nos.14 to 18, whereas Shattu's branch is represented by respondent Nos.1 to 13. Yallappa had one brother by name Balappa. Balappa's son Kallappa had filed OS No.74/1965 against the defendants seeking partition and separate possession of the properties in question, which came to be dismissed. However, it was held that defendant No.2 namely, Shattu was entitled to half share in the suit land. Aggrieved by the same, Kallappa had filed RA No.570 of 1966.

(3.) It is the case of the appellants that dispute was settled between the parties to R.A.No.570/1966 at the intervention of the elders and family and as per family arrangement Kallappa was allotted Sy.No.107 and 2 acres in Sy.No.252 and Shattu was allotted Sy.No.75 and 2 acres in Sy.No.252 and Irappa S/o Ramappa was allotted Sy.No.369 and 3 acres 2 guntas in Sy.No.252 of Kanabaragi village in Belagavi District. Varadi was given effecting the mutation in terms of the family settlement, which was certified in ME No.3427 and the entries were effected and the names of the respective parties came to be entered in the record of rights. In view of the family settlement and revenue records being mutated, the said Kallappa, appellant in RA No.570/1966 filed a memo before the lower appellate Court and the appeal came to be withdrawn. It transpires that on 07.06.1972, Shattu instituted a suit in OS No.259 of 1972 for partition and separate possession, which came to be dismissed. Regular appeal filed against the said judgment and decree also came to be dismissed in RSA No.156/1978 confirming the judgment and decree passed in OS No.259/1972. Pursuant to which, FDP No.16 of 1981 had been filed, which came be allowed by accepting the report of the Advocate Commissioner to measure and divide the landed properties. Aggrieved by the order passed in FDP No.16 of 1981, RA No.779 of 2009 was preferred by the appellants herein, which came to be dismissed. Hence, this second appeal.