This appeal is filed by the defendants in the suit.

2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial

3. The plaintiff is said to be the daughter of the first court for the sake of convenience defendant. Defendants – 2 and 3 are said to be the brothers of the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s grand-father, T.N.Mariswamy, is said to have died in the year 1947, in a police firing incident, when a curfew was imposed to quell the several ‘freedom fighters’, of whom Mariswamy was said to be one, agitating for the independence of India from British Rule. It transpires that the then Government had ordered grant of land to the legal heirs of Mariswamy in recognition of his sacrifice. And it transpires 14 acres and 9 guntas of land were said to have been granted in favour of Lakshmamma, the widow of Mariswamy – the grand mother of the plaintiff, in land bearing survey no. 26/2 and 26/3 of Basavanpura village, Krishnaraja puram hobli, Bangalore South Taluk (Now – Bangalore East Taluk), which was more fully described in the Schedule to the plaint and referred to as the suit property. Lakshmamma was said to have been possession of the lands along with the defendants and the plaintiff , till her death on 12.8.1988. It is stated that Lakshmamma had executed a Will, dated 20.2.1971, which was duly registered, bequeathing the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 3. It was claimed that the parties were jointly in possession of the property and there was no division by metes and bounds after the death of Lakshmamma. It was alleged that the first defendant who was under the influence of defendants 2 and 3, was intent on disposing of the said lands at their instance, to the exclusion of the plaintiff and thereby deprive her of her legitimate share. The khatha in respect of the suit property was said to be in the name of the first defendant as the eldest member of the family. It is alleged that when the plaintiff broached the subject of partition, with the said defendants, they are said to have reacted violently. It was the plaintiff’s say that she was denied any right whatsoever in the suit property, on the ground that she was married and could no longer claim any right in the suit property.

It is in that background that the plaintiff is said to have filed the suit. The plaintiff had claimed one fourth share in the suit property and for a division by metes and bounds and to be put in possession of her share. She had also claimed mesne profits.

It is stated that the trial court had granted an order of temporary injunction, dated 25.6.2002, restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from alienating the suit property. Notwithstanding the said order of injunction, the defendants 1 to 3 are said to have executed a sale deed dated 3.12.2004, in favour of defendant no.4 in respect of a portion of the suit property. It was further stated that the said defendants 1 to 3 had also executed two sale deeds, both dated 20.2.2003 in favour of one L.Ramesh Kumar and one Manjunath V.A. And that, even before filing of the suit, the defendant had executed a sale deed in favour of defendant no.4, in respect of a portion of the suit property on 31.10.2001. It was hence contended that the said sale deeds were not only in deprivation of the plaintiff’s legitimate share in the suit property but blatantly in violation of the order of injunction operating against the defendants.

The first defendant had filed written statement to deny the plaint averments. In that the joint possession of the suit property as claimed by the plaintiff was denied, so also was the will of Lakshmamma on the ground that as she was the only daughter of Lakshmamma, she would have succeeded to the property in the usual course and hence any will was unnecessary and superfluous.

Defendant no.5 had filed written statement denying the plaint averments and claiming that he has been impleaded as an after thought. It was contended that he had purchased the portion of th