( 1 ) THIS appeal by defendants 1 to 7 is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the dist. Judge, Gulbarga in R. A. No. 17/01 dated 30-6-2003 dismissing the appeal and cross-objections preferred by the defendant no. 2 and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of the Addl. Civil judge (Sr. Dn.), Gulbarga, in O. S. No. 203/ 1995 dated 10-8-2001 wherein the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed by holding that the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of 1/12th share in the suit schedule house bearing 1 -3-185 situated at chincholi and in suit lands measuring 21 acres 11 guntas both situated at Doulatpur village in Chincholi Taluk and dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit land in Sy. No. 125 measuring 4 acres 27 guntas and for the relief of future mesne profits of the suit properties and further ordering that defendants 2 to 5 are also entitled to partition and separate possession of their 1 / 12th share each in the house property and the suit lands in Sy. Nos. 18 and 19 of Doulatpur village.

( 2 ) THE essenual lacts of the case leading up to the filing of this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial court are as follows :-"the plaintiff fled O S 203/95 on the file of the Addl. Civil Judgc (Sr. Dn.), Gulbarga, seeking for partition and separate possession of his 1 /9th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and for mesne profits. "it is averred in the plaint that the suit properties are the Joint family properties consisting of himself and the defendants and the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff has succeeded to the property after the death of mother Sonubai-first wife of Narayan Rao defendant No. 6. It is averred in the plaint that Sonubai died long back leaving behind defendant No. 1. After the death of his first wife, defendant No. 6 married Smt. Leela Bai. Plaintiff, defendants 2 to 5 and one Sunitha and Pradeep are born out of the wedlock of said Leelabai with defendant No. 6. The two children of Leelabai i. e. Sunitha and Pradeep died at the age of 22 and 7 years respectively. Defendant No. 6 owned suit properties which are ancesteral properties and undivided Hindu joint family properties. Defendant No. 6 had no right to alienate the suit schedule property by way of mutation and defendants 1 and 6 in collusion with other defendants are bent upon grabbing the property depriving the share of plaintiff and plaintiff is entitled to 1 /9th share in the suit schedule property. The suit was resisted by the defendants. Defendants 2 to 5 filed written statement admitting the case of the plaintiff in total and averred that they may also be awarded share in the suit schedule properties by passing a decree in their favour. Defendants 1 and 7 filed the written statement admitting the relationship among the parties as averred in the plaint, but contended that the suit house and the suit lands Sy. Nos. 18 and 19 are the properties belonging to deceased-Sonubai mother of the defendant No. 1 and she inherited the same from her parents as she was the only daughter to her parents and hence contended that the mother of the defendant No. 1 was exclusive owner of the suit house and the suit lands Sy. Nos. 18 and 19 and after the death of Sonubai, defendant No. 1 had become the absolute owner ol the suit schedule property and the plaintiff and other defendants have no share in the suit schedule properties and further contended that after the death of Sonubai. defendant No. 1 was totally neglected by his father-defendant No. 6 and failed to attend the marriage of defendant No. 1 with defendant No. 7 and the defendant No. 1 is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit house and suit lands bearing Sy. Nos. 18 and 19 and plaintiff and defendants have no share in the suit properties and where

Click Here to Read the rest of this document