JUDGMENT :

This appeal is preferred by defendant No.9 in O.S.137/2009 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi.

2. Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff. Respondents 2 to 9 are other defendants who have preferred cross objections. We do not find it necessary to refer to pleadings, for the appeal can be disposed of on a short point relating to service of suit summons on the appellant.

3. The appellant was placed ex-parte in the suit, the resultant effect of decree passed in the suit is that sale of suit property under sale deed dated 05.01.2009 executed by defendants 1 to 7 through their power of attorney i.e., defendant 8 in favour of appellant/defendant 9 is held to be not binding on plaintiff.

4. The main grievance of defendant No.9 is that she was living abroad when suit summons was sought to be served on her at the address given in the cause title of the plaint and therefore there was no service of summons on her.

5. Smt. Surabhi Kulkarni, learned counsel for the appellant argued that when the suit summons issued to appellant through court was returned with an endorsement that the addressee was out of India, the trial court should not have allowed the application filed by