Mahadevi, Basamma and Savitri, three sisters, who

were

the

daughters

of

Gangappa

and

Narasawwa

instituted a suit for partition against their brothers

Mahadev and Ramgond, the purchaser from their brother

seeking for partition.

It was their case that the suit properties were

ancestral properties and originally belonged to their grand-

- 3 -

father Basappa. It was stated that their paternal uncle

Bhimappa had married one Nagawwa and they had a

daughter by name Laxmibai and all of them had died. It

was stated that since their only daughter died, the

property devolved on to legal heirs of their father i.e.,

themselves. It was stated though the land was ancestral,

taking advantage of the fact that their brothers name had

been entered in the record of rights along with their cousin

sister Laxmibai, the suit property was sold by Mahadev

after the death of Laxmibai. It was therefore stated that

the sale deed did not bind them and they were entitled to

1/8^th share.

Their brother chose to remain ex-parte. The

purchaser namely defendant No.2 entered appearance and

contested the suit putting forth the plea that he was a

bonafide purchaser and since there was no challenge to

the sale made in his favour, the suit was liable to be

dismissed.

- 4 -

The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence

adduced, recorded a finding that the suit properties were

ancestral properties and the three sisters by virtue of

being co-parcener by birth had 1/8^th share in the same

and accordingly it decreed the suit holding that the three

sisters are entitled to it.

The Appellate Court, on re-appreciation of the

evidence came to the conclusion that the finding recorded

by the Trial Court could not be found fault with and

proceeded to dismiss the appeal. As a result, this second

appeal has been preferred by the purchaser.

6.

Both the Courts have recorded a clear finding of fact

that the suit properties were joint family properties and

the plaintiffs were entitled to 1/8^th share by virtue of being

the daughters of Gangappa who had succeeded to the

properties on the death of his brother Bhimappa and his

legal heirs. Merely because the revenue entries stood in

the name of defendant No.1 i.e., brother of the three

sisters along with the daughter of Bhimappa that would

- 5 -

not lead to inference that he had an exclusive right to sell

the property. There is no question of law, much less the

substantial question of law arising for consideration in this

appeal.

The appeal is according dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MSR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21