SRINIVASA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THIS regular second appeal is preferred by the appellants in r. A. No. 6/96 being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the court below dismissing the appeal preferred by them and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court in O. S. No. 185/91 which was partly decreed by the trial Court.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in the course of this judgment with reference to their rank in the trial Court.

( 3 ) THE suit schedule properties belonged to one Sakkubayamma. She had a daughter by name Bhagyamma who pre-deceased her in the year 1967. The said Bhagyamma had four daughters and one son. Sakkubayamma died in the year 1980. During her life time sakkubayamma sold part of the suit property measuring 105 x 48 feet to one Krishnoji Rao which was subsequently purchased by padmavathamma, the second defendant under a registered deed of sale on 28. 9. 1977. Sakkubayamma has executed the document Ex. D. 10 transferring the remaining part of the schedule property to padmavathamma, who was one of her grand daughters. The plaintiffs are the brother and two sisters of Padmavathamma and Rukmini bai who is arrayed as the first defendant is their another sister. The suit property is in possession of the second defendant in whose favour the said document was executed. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of 1/5th share in the suit property which is site bearing No. 980 of Harnahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, arasikere Taluk, measuring east to west 108 feet and north to south 54 feet on the ground that the property belonged to their grandmother sakkubayamma. The suit was defended by the defendants on the plea that she has been in possession of portion of the suit property measuring 85 x 24 feet in her own right as owner having purchased the same from its vendor Mr. Krishnoji Rao under a registered sale deed on 28. 9. 1977. In respect of the other portion, the stand taken by the defendants was that the same was transferred to her under ex. D. 10 by her grand-mother Sakkubayamma and, therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any decree in their favour in respect of the entire suit schedule property.

( 4 ) THE trial Court formulated the following points as arising for its consideration :1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule property originally belonged to Smt. Sakubayamma and she has executed an will dated 5. 9. 1947 in favour of her daughter Smt. Bhagyamma?2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for 1/5th share in the suit schedule property?3. Whether the 2nd defendant proves that a portion of the suit property measuring about E. W. 81', N. S. 24' feet belongs to thimmoji Rao and he has executed a sale deed in his favour on 28. 9. 1977?4. Whether the 2nd defendant proves that the Sakkubayamma has executed an agreement dated 17. 12. 1967 and put in possession of a portion of the suit schedule property?

( 5 ) WHETHER the 2nd defendant proves that she has perfected her title to the suit schedule property by way of adverse possession?

( 6 ) WHAT order or decree? points 1 and 4 have been answered in the negative and point No. 5 is answered partly in the negative while point 2 was answered in the affirmative and point No. 3 was answered partly in favour of second plaintiff. Thus, the trial court partly decreed the suit. In so far as the portion of the property measuring 85 x 24 feet purchased by the second defendant from Krishnoji Rao the suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial court as aforesaid the defendants went in appeal to the lower appellate Court. The Court-below framed the following issues for its consideration. @@1. d ds} p { } Q g. Z v [, y ~ R U p p? 2. o ?w} [p ~ y K. Z d} } g d} % g y K d?} | Xy g$ p| E{?? { Mp o d E{ p [ Kd_~ v { E{? 3. Auc?@@ both the issues were answered in the negative. On the findings so recorded by it, the Court-below dismissed the appeal.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document