Challenging the dismissal of their suit, the plaintiffs

in O.S.No.146/2011 on the file of I-Additional Senior Civil

Judge, Davangere have preferred this appeal.

Appellants were plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the

respondents were defendant Nos.1 to 3 before the trial

Court. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be

referred to henceforth according to their ranks before the

trial Court.

- 3 -

The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows:

(a)

Defendant No.3 is the wife of one K. Huchappa.

Huchappa had a son by name Ningappa. Nagamma was

the wife of said Ningappa. Ningappa, Nagamma and

Huchappa, predeceased Duggamma. Themselves and

defendant No.2 are the daughters and defendant No.1 is

son of Ningappa and Nagamma.

(b)

That Huchappa was working as Checking

Inspector in Davangere Municipality. Defendant No.3 had

no income of her own. Huchappa purchased all the suit

schedule properties in the name of Duggamma-defendant

No.3. Plaintiffs and defendant No.2 were all married and

residing in their matrimonial homes. Defendant No.2 after

the death of her husband on 20.08.2010, returned to her

parental house and has been residing with defendant No.1.

(c) Defendant No.1 taking undue advantage of the

age and ignorance of defendant No.3, misrepresenting to

her that he has to borrow loan for fencing Sy.No.215 and

- 4 -

for that purpose she has to execute loan document, got

executed the registered partition deed dated 13.02.2008.

Defendant No.3 was not aware of execution of partition

deed till recently. Defendant No.1 to defraud the plaintiffs

and defendant No.3 clandestinely obtained the partition

deed dated 13.02.2008 from defendant No.3. Therefore,

the said document does not bind them. As they were legal

representatives of Ningappa, they were necessary parties

to the said partition deed.

(d)

Subsequently, defendant No.1 misrepresenting

to plaintiffs and defendant No.2, again devising same

strategy of requirement of execution of the documents to

avail the Bank loan for development of land in Sy.No.215,

got executed a registered document dated 05.12.2008 in

the office of Sub-Registrar, Davanagere. One of the friends

of first defendant by name Parasanna also induced them

to execute the said document. They were not allowed to

peruse the documents, only their signatures were obtained

on the document in the Sub-Registrar’s office. Plaintiff

- 5 -

No.2 and defendant No.2 do not know to read and write,

they have learnt only to subscribe signatures. Plaintiffs

and defendant No.2 subscribed their signatures trusting

defendant No.1.

(e) In the month of August 2011, defendant No.1

started opposing the plaintiffs’ visits to their parental

house. On confronting him he revealed about the

documents dated 13.02.2008 and 05.12.2008 and claimed

that they have no right in the schedule properties. The

document dated 05.12.2008 is purportedly a partition

deed between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 and 2.

The said document is unilateral one. Though the said

document recites that the plaintiffs and defendant No.2

have relinquished their rights in the properties by

receiving Rs.5,00,000/- towards their share, there was no

such

transaction.

Therefore,

partition

deed

dated

13.12.2008 and 05.12.2008 do not bind them.

4.

The plaintiffs prayed for the judgment and

decree to reopen the registered partition deed dated

- 6 -

05.12.2008 between them and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and

to grant decree for partition of their 1/5^th share in the suit

schedule properties. The subject matter of the suit are

agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.214/3, 215/3, 216/2,

Sy.No.87 and house properties bearing D.Nos.1171/1, 2,

3, D.No.1286/1B and a site bearing Sy.No.74/2.

5.

Defendants despite service of summons did not

appear before the trial Court and contest the matter. In

support of claim of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 was

examined as PW.1 and on their behalf, Exs.P1 to P90 were

marked.

6.

The trial Court on hearing the plaintiffs, by the

impugned judgment