Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. At paragraph No.11A of the written statement, defendant Nos.1 and 2 took up a specific contention that the suit for partial partition was not maintainable, since a house property situated in Malali Village, Mudhol Taluk, originally belonging to NC: 2025:KHC-D:12134-DB HC-KAR Pandappa Galagali was not included among the suit schedule properties and as such, suit was liable to be dismissed.

7. The Trial Court framed the following issues.

8. Plaintiff No.2 examined herself as PW1 and one witness as PW2 and documentary evidence at Exs.P1 to P9 were marked on their behalf. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 examined themselves as DW1 and DW2 and two witnesses as DW3 and DW4, while defendant No.3 examined herself as DW5 and NC: 2025:KHC-D:12134-DB HC-KAR documentary evidence at Exs.D1 to D.14 were marked on behalf of the defendants.

9. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, in favour of the plaintiffs by coming to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties originally belonged to the propositus Pandappa Galagali and upon his demise, the plaintiffs and defendants Nos.1 and 2 succeeded to the same and consequently became entitled to 1/4th share each in the suit schedule properties. Insofar as Additional Issue No.1 relating to the suit for partial partition not being maintainable for non-inclusion of all the joint family properties, the Trial Court answered the said issue against defendant No.1 to 3 and held that the suit was maintainable and consequently proceeded to decree the suit in favour of the plaintiffs against defendants. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, defendant Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court by way of the present appeal.

10. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondents and perused the material on record.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12134-DB HC-KAR

11. Learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 would reiterate the various contentions urged in the memorandum of appeal and refer to the material on record, in order to point out that, the Trial Court committed an error in not accepting the plea of earlier family arrangement put forth by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3, by virtue of which, the plaintiffs would not have any share over the suit schedule properties and the findings recorded by the Trial Court deserve to be set aside. Secondly learned counsel would invite our attention to paragraph No.11A of the written statement filed by defendant Nos.1 and 2 in order to contend that despite the specific plea urged by appellants/defendant No.1 to 3 that the property situated at Malali Village, Mudhol Taluk standing in the name of the original propositus Pandappa Galagali was not included in the instant suit for partial partition which was not maintainable, the Trial Court erred in answering the said issue against the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 and consequently the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court deserves to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed.

- 16 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12134-DB HC-KAR suit was liable to be dismissed. While dealing with the said contention, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no requirement of respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs including the said property also, since the suit for partial partition was maintainable and a party cannot be compelled to seek his legitimate share in all the properties and as such the said contentions are rejected by the Trial Court. In this context, learned counsel for the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 3 places reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of smt.Bhagyashree and others Vs. Balappa and others2, in order to contend that this Court has confirmed the findings of the Trial court, that the suit for partial partition was not maintainable.