JUDGMENT

These two appeals are arising out of a common judgment passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dvn), Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, pertaining to O.S.Nos.174/1995 and 215/1995.

2. Brief facts necessary for the disposal of these two appeals as is borne from the records are as under:

One Narayana Reddy and Nagappa Reddy purchased property in Sy.No.124 of Dodda Kannalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, Bengaluru District from its erstwhile owner Sri Papanna Chari S/o Thomasappa.

3. The boundaries of property in Sy.No.124 of Dodda Kannalli village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk reads as under:

East by : Kaka Thimmaiah, Annayya Reddy's Lands and Gramathana;

West by : Ramaia H, Nyathappa, Thomsachar's lands;

North by : Gramathana and South by : Road

4. The said sale deed came to be registered on

08.07.1953 before the Sub-Registrar. Thereafter, Narayana Reddy died and his wife Lakshmamma and his daughter Rathna filed a suit for partition in the year 1995 seeking their half share in the property against the wife and children of Sri Nagappa Reddy.

5. Earlier to filing of the said suit for partition, O.S.No.174/1995 was filed by K.N.Sananda Ganesh S/o Late Nagappa Reddy stating that the suit schedule property in O.S.No.215/1995 is the absolute property of Nagappa Reddy by virtue of an agreement entered into on 30.01.1980 by paying Rs.30,000./- as the consideration and Narayana Reddy has relinquished all his share in the suit property to Sri Nagappa Reddy.

6. While Laskhmamma and Rathna denied the plaint averments in O.S.No.174/1995, the wife and children of Nagappa Reddy denied the plaint averments in O.S.No.215/1995 maintaining that the suit schedule property in O.S.No.215/1995 is the absolute property of Nagappa Reddy by virtue of partition that has taken place in the year 1960 and subsequent revenue entries being transferred on to the names of wife and children of Nagappa Reddy and thus sought for dismissal of the suit.

7. Based on the rival contentions of the parties in both the suits, the learned Trial Judge raised the following issues:

"1. Whether the defendants 1 to 4 prove that there was a partition of family properties between K.T. Narayana Reddy and K.T. Nagappa Reddy in the year 1960?

2. Whether the defendants No.1 to 4 further prove that the suit property was given to the share of K.T. Nagappa Reddy at the partition of the year

1960?

3. Whether the defendants No.1 to 4 prove that the husband of plaintiff No.1 has represented that the suit property should be enjoyed by K.T. Nagappa Reddy exclusively for himself and thereby the husband of 1st plaintiff lost his right over the suit property?

4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to half share in the suit property?

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree prayed for?

6. What decree or order?"

8. Both the suits were tried separately, however, judgment in both the suits came to be rendered by a common judgment which is impugned in these two appeals.

9. In order to prove the case of the parties in O.S.No.174/1995, the plaintiff K.N.Sananda Ganesha one of the sons of Nagappa Reddy examined himself as P.W.1.

He reiterated the contents of the plaint in his examination in chief and in his further examination, he has stated that since his father and his uncle (Nagappa Reddy and Narayana Reddy) had purchased the property jointly, however his father was alone enjoyed the property in exclusion to his uncle. He has further stated that his uncle was a contractor and his father possessed properties other than the suit property. It is also stated by him, that earlier to 1953 there was a oral partition between his father and uncle. In the year 1985 Narayana Reddy died and thereafter words he has given application to the revenue authorities and got the revenue entries transferred to his name.

10. In his cross-examination on behalf of the defendant who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.215/1995 it is elicited that Lakshmamma is his aunt i.e., Narayana Reddy's