A judgment does not bind non-parties who have independent claims to the property in question and cannot challenge a decree that does not affect their rights.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 09.02.2024 passed in O.S.No.444/2022 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Gadag, whereby the suit for partition and separate possession filed by respondents No.1 and 2 against respondents No.3 and 4 in relation to the suit schedule immoveable property was decreed in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 and against respondents No.3 and 4.

2. Along with the appeal, the appellants, who are not parties to the suit or the impugned judgment and decree, have filed I.A. No.3/2025 seeking leave/permission to prefer and prosecute the present appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record.

4. Respondents No.2 to 4 have been served with the notice of this appeal; however, they have chose to remain unrepresented and have not contested the appeal.

5. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondents No.1 and 2 filed the instant suit inter alia contending that they jointly purchased the suit schedule immoveable property along with respondents No.3 and 4 (defendants No.1 and 2) vide registered sale deed dated 12.04.2022 and since requests/demand made by respondents No.1 and 2 to respondents No.3 and 4 to effect partition and division of the suit schedule properties were not complied with by respondents No.3 and 4 (defendants No.1 and 2), the plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit for partition and separate possession of their 1/4^th share in the suit schedule immoveable properties and for other reliefs.

6. The defendants having entered appearance admitted that they, along with the plaintiffs, had purchased the suit schedule properties jointly, and submitted that they had no objection for the suit to be decreed and partition to be effected between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2. Accordingly, the Trial Court framed five issues which are as hereunder:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the plaintiffs are the joint owner and in possession of the suit property?

2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled 1/2th share in the suit schedule property?

3. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that, he is entitled ½ share in the suit schedule property?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for relief has claimed in the plaint?

5. What order or decree?”

7. Plaintiff No.1 examined himself as P.W.1, and two documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to P.2 on behalf of the plaintiffs. A copy of the sale deed was marked as Ex.D.1 when confronted the P.W.1 during cross-examination by the defendants. Defendants did not adduce any oral evidence. The Trial Court proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decree noticing that there was no dispute between the parties as regards purchasing of the suit schedule property jointly from their vendor on 11.04.2022 vide Ex.D.1 and proceeded to pass the decree for partition accordingly.

8. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree, the appellants are before this Court inter alia contending that they had independent right, title, interest and possession over the suit schedule property and that the impugned judgment and decree having been passed behind their back would affect their possessory and proprietary rights over the suit schedule property and as such it was necessary that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Trial Court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the suit schedule property claimed by the appellants is completely different than the property purchased by respondents No