JUDGMENT

The appellants being the defendants in a Partition Suit in O.S.No.952/2010 have presented this appeal for laying a challenge to the judgment & decree dated 06.03.2014 entered by the learned Judge of Fast Track Court-II, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru whereby the suit having been decreed in terms of the plaint prayer and no share in the property is granted to them.

2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:

(a) Respondents 1, 2 & 3 had filed the subject suit for a decree of partition & separate possession of their one-half share in the suit schedule properties. The appellants being the Defendant Nos. 5 to 11 had filed the Written Statement resisting the suit. On the basis of pleadings of the parties and the documents accompanying the same, learned Judge had framed as many as three principal issues that related to nature of the suit property, earlier partition as pleaded by these appellants and the valuation of the property for the purpose of jurisdiction &

court fee.

(b) From the side of Plaintiffs, the 2nd respondent herein being the 2nd Plaintiff in the court below got himself examined as PW-1; in his deposition as many as 24 documents came to be marked as Exhibits P-1 to P-24, of them P-1 & P-2 were genealogical trees and P-3 was a certified copy of registered Sale Deed dated 28.02.1960.

Ex.P-4 was death certificate of B.Narayanappa, Ex.P-5 to P-14 were RTCs; P-15 to P-22 were medical reports; P-23 & P-24 were the Police Complaints.

(c) From the defendant’s side the 7th appellant herein Mr.Kempegowda who was Defendant No.11 in the suit got examined as DW-1 and 13 documents came to be marked in his deposition as Exhibits D-1 to D-13. Ex.D-1, D-3 & D-4 were the registered sale deeds respectively dated 03.11.2004, 20.11.1935 & 28.02.1967; Ex.D-2 happened to be the geanological tree; Ex.D-5 was Panchayat Parikath dated 22.07.2004; Ex.D-6 to D-8 are Mutation Register extracts; Ex.D-9 to D-13 were RTCs.

(d) Learned Trial Judge having heard the submissions of both the sides and having considered pleadings of the parties made evidentiary material on record, has granted the judgment & decree that are put in challenge.

3. Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the appellants vehemently argues that his clients too being the persons claiming under the then coparceners, ought to have been granted one share since they were one of the three branches of the family and therefore to the extent of denial of any share, the impugned judgment & decree are unsustainable. In support of this contention he pressed into service the earlier partition at Ex.D-5 dated 22.07.2004 in support of his contention. He drew our attention to the family tree vide Ex.D-1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently contest the assertion of the appellants drawing attention to the admission of the appellants side in para 6. They also take us to the evidentiary material discussed by the learned Trial Judge and seek dismissal of the appeal.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers along with the original LCR, we decline indulgence in the matter. Firstly, the court below having considered the pleading of the parties and weighed evidentiary material has recorded the impugned findings. Originally the suit properties belonged to one Mr.Chikkakempanna and Mr.Byanna who were the ancestors of Appellants. These two persons had sold the suit properties to Annayappa vide registered sale deed dated 20.12.1935; one Mr.Byrappa bought the very same properties from Annayappa vide registered sale deed dated 28.02.1960. This Byrappa had married Smt.Muniyamma. Mr.Muniyanna is the brother of Smt.Muniyamma. Therefore he cannot be a coparcener of Byrappa’s family. This sale deed does not say anything about Muniyanna at all. The contention that Mr.Byrappa had bought the property for the benefit of the joint family is not vouched by any evidence whatsoever. Merely because Muniyanna being a brother-in-law was permitted to reside in the house of