This RFA Crob is filed by the cross objectors

challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.10.2017

passed in O.S.No.94/2010 by the I Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Gokak insofar as dismissing the suit in respect of

property bearing R.S.No.32/3B.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking before the trial court.

Cross objectors are plaintiffs and respondents

are the defendants. Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and

separate possession in respect of property bearing

R.S.No.32/3A

and

32/3B

of

Kalliguddi

village

and

properties bearing R.S.No.45/1E and 45/1F situated at

Raderatti village. It is the case of the plaintiffs that

defendant No.2 was the father of plaintiffs, defendant No.1

and husband of defendant No.3. It is the case of the

plaintiffs that defendant No.1 in collusion with revenue

- 3 -

authorities and taking undue advantage of old age of

defendant Nos.2 and 3 behind the back got created

documents and mutated his name in the revenue records.

Plaintiffs are in joint possession of the suit properties.

Plaintiffs being the members of Hindu undivided family and

the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of

the plaintiffs and defendants. Plaintiffs requested the

defendants to effect partition but the defendants refused

to effect partition. Hence, cause of action arose for the

plaintiffs to file the suit for partition and separate

possession.

4.

Defendant No.1 filed written statement and

admitted the relationship with the plaintiffs with them. It is

denied that defendant No.1 got mutated his name in the

revenue records taking advantage of illiteracy of the

plaintiffs. It is further denied that suit schedule properties

are ancestral joint family properties and contended that

plaintiffs are not in possession. It is contended that

plaintiffs marriage was solemnized about 25 years back

- 4 -

and since then they are residing in their husband's house.

The marriage of the plaintiff was performed by incurring

huge expenses and gave gold ornaments. It is contended

that partition was taken place between his father Siddappa

with his brothers by name Gurupadappa, Laxmappa,

Maharudrappa, Parappa in their ancestral joint family

properties in which Sy.No.45/1E measuring 1 acre 15

guntas was allotted to his father Siddappa and as per

M.E.No.983, the name of Siddappa and brothers were

mutated in respect of the properties bearing Sy.Nos.45/1E

and 45/1F. Since then Siddappa is in possession and

enjoyment of 1 acre 15 guntas of Sy.No.45/1E and hence

the said property is only joint family property of plaintiffs

and defendants. It is contended that Siddappa was doing

mason work and out of the income from the said work, he

purchased

Sy.No.32/3A

on

02.08.1980

for

valid

consideration and the said property was self-acquired

property

of

deceased

Siddappa.

Further,

deceased

Siddappa had purchased Sy.No.28/1A measuring 1 acre 5

guntas in the name of defendant No.1 when he was minor.

- 5 -

The said property was got exchanged by Siddappa with his

brother

Basappa

and

as

per

the

said

exchange,

Sy.No.28/1A was give to Basappa and Sy.No.45/1F was

taken by deceased Siddappa. Hence, Sy.No.45/1E is self-

acquired property of deceased Siddappa. It is contended

that defendant No.1 is a government job holder and

purchased

Sy.No.32/3B

on

10.05.1995

for

valid

consideration. Since from the date of purchase, defendant

No.1 became absolute owner of the suit property bearing

Sy.No.32/3B. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.

The trial court on the basis of the pleadings of

the parties framed following issues:

1)

Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit schedule

properties are ancestral and joint family properties

of them and defendants?

2)

Whether the defendants prove prior partition as

contended in paragraph No.11 of the written

statement?

3)

Whether the defendants further prove that some of

the suit schedule properties are their self acquired

properties?

- 6 -

4)

Whether the defendants prove that