JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/defendant Nos.3 and 4 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the FTC-II, Bangalore Rural District Judge, Bengaluru, herein after referred as Trial Court in O.S.No.382/2010 for having decreed suit for partition by granting 2/4th share to the respondent plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 vide judgment dated

22.9.2014.

2. The appellants were defendant Nos.3 and 4 and respondents Nos.1 to 3 were respondent Nos.1 and 2 and defendant No.1 before the Trial Court. The status of the parties before the Trial Court is retained for the sake of convenience.

3. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

4. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial court is that plaintiffs filed suit against defendant for partition and separate possession of plaintiff's of 2/3rd share jointly in accordance with law and relief of permanent injunction to the share of the plaintiff and the declaration to declare that, defendant No.1 is an insane person and thereby he cannot execute any testamentary documents.

5. It is alleged by the plaintiffs in their plaint that plaintiffs are the son and daughter of the defendant Nos.1, the defendant No.2 is grand mother of the plaintiff. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 are the purchasers of the property from the plaintiff's undivided Hindu Joint Family. During the lifetime of Ramaiah, the grand father of the plaintiff and father of defendant No.1, had acquired the suit schedule property, which are joint family properties of the plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1 and 2. The same has been acquired by the plaintiff grand father through succession, later, by the defendant No.1 on behalf of the joint family after the death of the father Ramaiah, the plaintiffs have contended that plaintiff are in possession and enjoyment of the property. As they are original absolute owner of the property. The father of the plaintiffs i.e, the defendant No.1 is suffering from psychiatric disorder from 2000 and he has been taking treatment with assonance of wife at Nimhans and Victoria hospital. The defendant No.1 was diagnosed that he is suffering from psychological disease. The defendant No.1 was not taking food continuously for a week and his behaviours was tonally disturbed and he has been declared as mental patient by both the hospitals. Since from 2004, the defendant No.1 is suffering from the said diseases and he is a patient.

6. It is further alleged that the defendant No.1 is an insane person and the defendant No.2 is old lady who has no capacity for reading and writing Kannada and understanding the same. She has lost her decision making power long back and the defendant Nos.3 and 4 had colluded with each other with a malafide intention to knock off the property belonging to the plaintiff's joint family, comprising of defendant Nos.1, 2 and the plaintiff have misused the illness and weakness of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they have played fraud on them and created a notarized GPA, even though the defendant No.1 is an insane person and defendant No.2 is illiterate person, as if the defendant No.1 and 2 have executed GPA in favour of the defendant No.3 and in collusion with defendant No.4 concocted and created sale deed which has been executed by the defendant No.3 in favour of the defendant No.4, as if consideration is paid to the defendant No.3. The defendant No.1 is an insane person, the alleged GPA have been executed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and cannot survive and the same is fraudulent and concocted and created for the purpose of knocking of the property of the plaintiffs. Further it is contended that there was no occasion for the defendant Nos.1 and 2, to executed GPA in favour 3rd party as defendant No.1 could have executed GPA in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendant Nos.3 and 4 have colluded each other and they have not made the plaintiffs as parties. The plaintiffs came to know only when the phanai is taken by them in which the name of the de