The plaintiffs in O.S.No.305/2014 on the file of the

learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari (hereinafter

referred to as the 'Trial Court') are impugning the judgment

and decree dated 20.08.2018 dismissing their claim for

partition in respect of schedule 'A' properties while decreeing

the suit only in respect of Schedule 'B' property.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs filed

O.S.No.305/2014

before

the

Trial

Court

against

the

defendants for partition and separate possession of Schedule

'A' and 'B' properties. It is contended that plaintiffs are the

children of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they form a Hindu

Joint Family. It is contended that item Nos.1 and 2 of the

suit 'A' Schedule are the landed properties and 'B' Schedule

is house property acquired by the grandfather of the

plaintiffs by name Katla Hanumanthappa who enjoyed both

- 3 -

'A' and 'B' Schedule properties during his lifetime. After his

death, his only son defendant No.1 along with other family

members came in possession of the same and defendant

No.1 got mutated his name in the revenue records. However,

there was no division of the properties amongst the

members of the family. The plaintiffs are entitled for 1/4th

share in the plaint schedule properties.

3.

It is contended that defendant No.3 with an evil

intention to grab item Nos.1 and 2 of Schedule 'A', created a

sham and nominal sale deed dated 07.04.1986 without

paying any consideration, in the name of his mother

Mallamma. Defendant No.1 being deaf and dumb was not in

a position to execute the sale deed. After the death of

Mallamma, defendant No.3 in collusion with the revenue

authorities got mutated his name in the revenue records.

Defendant No.1 had no right to alienate the property in

which the plaintiffs are also entitled for share. Therefore the

sale deed dated 07.04.1986 is void ab initio and not binding

on the plaintiffs. Plaintiff No.1 contended that the record of

rights are standing in the names of plaintiffs and defendant

- 4 -

Nos.1 and 2. Therefore, the plaintiffs are claimed their 1/4th

share each in 'A' and 'B' schedule properties by partitioning

the same by meets and bounds.

4.

Schedule 'A' consists of two items of properties

i.e. Sy.No.480B measuring 4.16 acres and 481 measuring

9.63 acres situated at Belagal Village, Ballari Hobli, Ballari

with the boundaries mentioned therein.

5.

Schedule 'B' refers to a house property bearing

No.217 situated at TS No.1191, CTS Block No.12, CTS Ward

No.19, CMC Ward No.28, Bandihatti, Ballari Taluk and

District with the boundaries mentioned therein.

6.

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not contested the

matter. Respondent No.3 filed written statement denying the

contentions taken by the plaintiffs.

7.

It is contended that the suit of the plaintiffs is

barred by limitation. Plaintiffs have no right whatsoever over

Schedule 'A' properties. It is further contended that mother

of defendant No.3 by name Malamma purchased 'A' Schedule

- 5 -

properties under the registered sale deed dated 07.04.1986

from defendant No.1 for a total consideration of Rs.28,000/-.

Since then, she was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of

the properties. The revenue records were standing in her

name. It is stated that defendant No.1 sold 'A' Schedule

properties in favour of Mallamma to meet his family

necessities and she was a bonafide purchaser for value.

8.

It is further contended that at the time of sale of

Schedule 'A' properties by defendant No.1, plaintiff No.1 was

a minor and plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 were not born. Mallamma

died on 15.03.2005 leaving behind her defendant No.3 as

her legal representative. Therefore the revenue records are

mutated in his name and he is in possession and enjoyment

of the properties.

9.

It is contended that the plaintiffs in collusion of

defendant Nos.1 and 2 filed the suit with ulterior motive. It is

also contended that more than 17 years have lapsed after

the plaintiff No.1 attaining majority and he was very well

aware that the mot