Present appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff

aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 29.11.2008

passed in R.A.No.55/2006 on the file of Addl. Sessions

Judge, Fast Track Court-II, Davanagere (hereafter

referred to as 'the First Appellate Court'), in and by

which, the First Appellate Court while allowing the appeal,

set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 29.09.2006

3

passed in O.S.No.24/2006 on the file of Civil Judge

(Sr.Dn.), Harihar (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'),

which had decreed the suit of the plaintiff for partition.

2. Brief facts of the case of the plaintiff are that

one late Smt.Basamma, wife of Sri.Nanjundappa was the

owner of agricultural land bearing Survey No.205/A/1

measuring 6 acres 91 cents situated at Hosakote village.

She

had

four

daughters,

viz.,

Smt.Gangamma,

Smt.Mallamma,

Smt.Deveeramma

and

Smt.Kotrabasamma. That both the said Smt.Basamma

and her husband died about 40 years back. After demise

of Smt.Basamma and her husband, their four daughters

succeeded to the aforesaid land. That the second

daughter Smt.Mallamma and her husband died issueless.

The first daughter Smt.Gangamma married to one

Malleshappa. As she was well placed, she had

relinquished her share in the property in favour of the

third and fourth daughter, namely, Smt.Deveeramma and

Smt. Kotrabasamma. Accordingly, the mutation in

respect of the aforesaid property was effected in the

4

names of Smt.Deveeramma and Smt.Kotrabasamma with

the consent of said Smt.Gangamma. That the plaintiff

and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the children of

Smt.Deveeramma. Smt.Kotrabasamma had a daugher

by name Smt.Halamma. That there was a partition

between

Smt.Deveeramma

and

Smt.Kotrabasamma

dividing the aforesaid property equally each being entitled

to 3 acres 45 cents. Thus, the aforesaid property being

the absolute property of Smt.Basamma was succeeded to

her

by

her

daughters

Smt.

Deveeramma

and

Smt.Kotrabasamma. That plaitniff and the defendants 1

and 2 being the heirs of Smt.Deveeramma are entitled for

1/3rd share each in the said property. That the plaintiff

had requested the Defendant No.2, her brother for

partition and separate possession of the suit schedule

property which was evaded on one pretext or the other.

That during the first week of February 2006, plaintiff

learnt that Defendant No.2 had sold the suit schedule

property to Defendant No.3 and that the said deed of sale

was not binding on them. Hence, sought for partition and

5

separate possession of her 1/3rd share in the suit

schedule property.

3. Upon service of summons, Defendants 1 and 2

appeared and filed written statement admitting the plaint

averments and paid Court Fee for their respective shares

in the property. Defendant No.3, the purchaser of the

property from Defendant No.2 filed written statement

denying the plaint averments and also contended that the

suit was barred by limitation. It was contended that the

Defendant No.2 was the absolute owner of the suit

schedule property to the extent of 3 acres 45 cents and in

exercise of his ownership, had sold the same for a

valuable sale consideration in favour of Defendant No.3

by executing a registered sale agreement. That since the

Defendant No.2 had failed to perform his part of the

contract, Defendant No.3 was constrained to file a suit in

O.S.No.510/2002 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.),

Harihar, seeking relief of specific performance. That after

the contest, the said suit came to be decreed on

06.10.2004. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and

6

Decree, the Defendant No.2 herein (who was the

defendant in the said suit) had preferred a regular appeal

in

R.A.No.248/2004

before

the

District

Judge,

Davanagere, which was allowed directing Defendant No.3

herein (who was plaintiff therein) to pay a sum of

Rs.5,000/- to Defendant No.2 herein and obtains deed of

sale in respect of the suit property. It is further

contended by the Defendant No.3 that the present suit

for partition has been filed by the