AND

DECREE

DATED

02.12.2014 PASSED IN O.S.NO.188/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE

CIVIL JUDGE, H.D.KOTE.

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,

THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. This Court heard the

matter earlier and the learned counsel for the appellants sought

time to place the citations before the Court. Accordingly, he has

filed a memo with citations today before the Court.

This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and

decree dated 12.04.2022 passed in R.A.No.57/2015 on the file

of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., H.D.Kote.

- 3 -

3.

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before

the Trial Court is that the suit items are ancestral and joint

family properties of himself and defendants. Hence, the plaintiff

is entitled for share in the suit schedule properties and claimed

the share on the ground that the defendants have refused to

give share in respect of the suit schedule properties.

4.

In pursuance of the suit summons, the second

defendant took the contention in the written statement by

virtue of paluparikath dated 30.03.1966, the plaintiff severed

from the joint family and also contended that in addition to

paluparikath, sale deed dated 26.05.1980 was executed in

respect of item No.1 by her father. It is also contended that her

father had executed Will in respect of item No.2 and this Court

has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and the same is

also hit by the principles of partial partition and the suit is also

barred by limitation. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for half

share as claimed in the suit.

5.

The Trial Court based on the pleadings of the

parties, framed the issues. The plaintiff in order to substantiate

his contention, he examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked

- 4 -

the documents as Exs.P1 to P8a. On the other hand, the second

defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and also examined five

more witnesses as D.Ws.2 to D.W.6 and got marked the

documents as Exs.D1 to D47.

6.

The Trial Court after considering both oral and

documentary evidence available on record while answering

issue No.1, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to

prove the fact that the suit items are ancestral and joint family

properties of himself and defendants and came to the

conclusion that already there was a partition dated 30.03.1996

and also came to the conclusion that the father had executed

the Sale Deed dated 26.05.1980 and also came to the

conclusion that defendant No.2 has proved the very execution

of the Will in respect of item No.2 by her father and other

issues are answered as ‘negative’ and came to the conclusion

that the suit is barred by limitation and dismissed the suit filed

by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit,

the plaintiff has filed an appeal in R.A.No.57/2015 contending

that the Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the

suit in entirety and also contended that the Trial Court

erroneously came to the conclusion that the suit schedule

- 5 -

properties are not amenable for partition and also the suit is

barred by limitation and considering the grounds urged in the

appeal memo, the First Appellate Court formulated the point

that whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that item

No.1 of the suit properties was self acquired properties of

defendant No.2 by virtue of the sale deed (Ex.D1) executed by

her father in her favour and also formulated the point whether

the Trial Court was justified in holding that the item No.2 of the

suit schedule properties was separate property of daughter of

defendant No.2 namely., Krishnaveni by virtue of Will executed

by Mr.Krishnappa in her favour and also formulated the point

that whether defendant No.2 is the owner of item No.3 of the

suit schedule properties by virtue of oral Will/arrangement

made by her father Mr.Krishnappa in her favour, whether the

Trial Court was justified in holding that defenda