Prior oral partition established through documentary evidence negated plaintiffs' claims for additional shares in joint family properties under Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT :

E.S. INDIRESH, J.

In Regular Second Appeal No.2027 of 2015, appellants are the legal representatives of the original plaintiff, challenging the judgment and decree dated 29^th August, 2015 passed in Regular Appeal No.222 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), allowing the appeal in-part and decreeing the Original Suit No.111 of 2009 filed BY the plaintiffs on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Nelamangala (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court') in-part.

2. In Regular Second Appeal No.1704 of 2015, appellants are the defendants 1 and 2, challenging the judgment and decree dated 29^th August, 2015 passed in Regular Appeal No.222 of 2013 on the file of the First Appellate Court, allowing the appeal in-part and modifying the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.111 of 2009 filed by the plaintiffs on the file of the Trial Court.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties in these appeals are referred to in terms of their ranking before the Trial Court.

4. The relevant facts for adjudication of these appeals are that the plaintiff No.1-D.M. Gangamma, plaintiff No.2-D.M. Anasuya, defendant No.1-D.M. Hanumanthappa, defendant No.2-D.M. Ramanjanappa, husband of the defendant No.3-D.M. Lakshminarayanappa and defendant No.4-D.M. Jayalakshmi are the children of late Muddha Hanumaiah and late Dodda Arasamma. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, their father Mudda Hanumaiah had several properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint, which are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and accordingly, plaintiffs sought for share in the suit schedule properties and same was denied by the defendants and as such, the plaintiffs have filed Original Suit No.111 of 2009 before the Trial Court, seeking one-sixth share each in the suit schedule properties.

5. After service of notice, defendants 1 to 3 entered appearance and filed written statement. Defendant No.4 remained absent and accordingly, she was placed ex-parte. It is the specific case of the defendants 1 to 3 that there was an oral partition among the members of the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants and same was reduced into writing on 15^th February, 1989 and thereafter, the said partition was given effect to by entering the name of the defendants in the revenue records. It is also stated that, after partition, the suit properties, which fall into the share of the plaintiffs, have been sold in favour of the third parties by the plaintiffs and accordingly, the defendants 1 to 3 sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings on record, formulated the issues for its consideration.

7. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs examined the son of the plaintiff No.1(a) as PW1-M.R. Vivek Kumar [Plaintiff No.1(b)] and produced 46 documents, which were marked as Exhibits P1 to P46. On the other hand, defendants examined two witnesses as DW1 and DW2 and got marked 10 documents as Exhibits D1 to D10.

8. Perusal of the order sheet in the suit would indicate that, originally the suit was filed before the I Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru in Original Suit No.987 of 2002 and thereafter, the suit was transferred to Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and JMFC., Nelamangala as per order dated 24^th April, 2009. After transfer, the suit was renumbered as Original Suit No.111 of 2009. It is also to be noted that, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff No.2-D.M. Anasuya filed memo seeking withdrawal of the suit and accordingly, the suit was prosecuted by the plaintiff No.1.

9. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by judgment and decree dated 20^th July, 2013, dismissed the suit of plaintiffs. Being aggrieved by judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.111 of 2009, legal representatives of the plaintiff No.1 have filed Regular Appeal No.2