JUDGMENT

This first appeal is filed challenging the Judgment and preliminary decree dated 13.10.2015 passed in OS No.218/2011 by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi dismissing the suit in respect of B-Schedule property.

2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court. Appellants are the plaintiffs and respondents are the defendants.

3. Plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiffs, that Bommappa was the original propositus who had two daughters and a son namely Mahantawwa, Yallawwa and Kallappa i.e., the defendant No.1 and Kallappa has a wife by name Devakka and three sons by name Bommappa, Mahantesh and Prakash and they are the plaintiffs. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and further the plaintiffs and defendants are the members of Hindu joint family and there is no partition effected in between the plaintiffs and defendants in respect of the suit schedule properties. The defendant Nos.1 and 2 jointly sold the land bearing No.517/2 measuring 8 acres 34 guntas mentioned in Schedule-B in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 5 under registered sale deed dated 24.03.2009. The plaintiffs being the legal heirs of Bommappa are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. It is contended that after the death of Bommappa the plaintiffs and defendants are succeeded to the suit schedule properties. There is no partition affected between the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs demanded for partition and separate possession but, the defendants denied to effect the partition. Hence, cause of action arises for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession. 4. The defendant No.1 appeared in person, but did not choose to file a written statement. Defendant No.2 filed the written statement supporting the case of the plaintiffs. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 have filed a written statement contesting that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable as the plaintiffs have not included all the suit schedule properties and further contended that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have no right, title and interest over the B-Schedule property and contended that the defendant Nos.3 to 5 are the bonafide purchasers. The defendant Nos.3 to 5 after verifying the records have purchased the B-Schedule property and they are the bonafide purchasers. Hence, on these grounds he prays to dismiss the suit. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties framed the following issues:

1. zÁªÁ ¸éÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ºÁUÀÆ 1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2£Éà ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÄÀgÀ ¦vÁæfðvÀ-dAn PÀÄlÄA§zÀ ¸éÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼ÉAzÄÀ ªÁ¢AiÀÄgÀÄ ¹zÞÀ¥Àr¸ÄÀvÁÛgÉAiÄÉÃ?

2. zÁªÁ ¸éÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÊÉQ ±ÉqÀÆå¯ï § D¹ÛAiÄÀ£ÀÄß 1£Éà ¥æÀwªÁ¢AiÄÀÄ 3 jAzÀ

5£Éà ¥æÀwªÁ¢AiÄÀjUÉ ¢: 24-3-2007 gÀAzÀÄ ªiÀÁrzÀ Rjâ ¥ÀvæÀªÅÀ ¨ÉÃPÁAiÉÄݲÃgÀ EzÀÄÝ, CzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä »¸ìÉ ªÉÄÃ¯É §AzsÀ£ÀPÁgÀPÀ«gÀĪÅÀ¢®è JAzÀÄ ªÁ¢AiÄÀgÀÄ ¹zÞÀ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄ?

3. zÁªÁ ¸éÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À°è vÀªÀÄä 3-5 CA±À »¸Éì ¥ÀqÉAiÄÀ®Ä ªÁ¢AiÄÀgÀÄ ºÀPÀÄ̼îÀªÀgÁVzÁÝgÉAiÄÉÃ?

4. vÁªÅÀ ¥ÁæªiÀÁtÂPÀ jÃwAiÀÄ RjâzÁgÀjzÀÄÝ AiÉÆÃUåÀ ¨É¯ÉUÉ zÁªÁ §

D¹ÛAiÄÀ£ÀÄß Rjâ¹zÁÝV 3 jAzÀ 5£Éà ¥æÀwªÁ¢AiÄÀgÀÄ ¹zÝÀ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÄÉ?

5. zÁªÁ ¸éÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À°è ªÁ¢AiÄÀgÀÄ J¯Áè ¸éÀvÀÄÛUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÉÃj¸ÀzÉ EgÀĪÅÀzÀjAzÀ zÁªÉAiÄÀÄ GfðvÀªÁUÀĪÅÀ¢®èªÉAzÄÀ ¥æÀwªÁ¢ 3 jAzÀ 5£ÉÃzÀªÀgÀÄ

¹zÝÀ¥Àr¸ÀÄvÁÛgÉAiÉÄÃ?

6. J£ÄÀ DzÉñÀ CxÀªÁ rQæ?

5. Plaintiff No.2 was examined himself as PW.1 and got marked 6 documents as Ex.P.1 to 6. The defendant No.4 was examined as DW.1 and examined one witness as DW.2 and got marked 5 documents as Ex.D.1 to 5. The trial Court on the assessment of oral and documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative, issue No.3 partly in the affirmative, Issue No.4 in the negative, issue No.5 does not survive for consideration and issue No.6 as per the final order. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part. It is or