V/O/DT 04.06.2026 APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED AS ABATED AS AGAINST R1 AND R3)

THIS RSA IS FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 07.12.2016 PASSED IN RA NO.41/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHICKBALLAPUR (SITTING AT CHINTAMANI), DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 08.06.2011 PASSED IN OS NO.73/2001 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC., CHINTHAMANI.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard Sri Narayana Swamy V. K., learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Purchaser of the share of the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.73/2001 is the appellant in this second appeal.

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

A suit for partition and separate possession came to be filed by the first respondent - Chikka Krishnamurthy alias Krishnamurthy against Rangamma, Dodda krishnamurthy and Sarojamma in respect of the following properties (Hereinafter referred to as the suit properties):

"1. S.No.29/3, measuring 0-03 guntas, assessed at Rs.0-03,

2. S.No.29/4, measuring 0-05 guntas, assessed at Rs.0-71,

3. S.No.29/2, measuring 0-03 guntas, assessed at Rs.0-03,

4. S.No.24/3, measuring 0-10 guntas, assessed at Rs.1-40,

5. S.No.25/1, measuring 0-02 guntas, assessed at Rs.0-28,

6. S.No.25/2, measuring 0-02 guntas, assessed at Rs.0-28,

7. S.No.25/3, measuring 0-09 guntas, assessed at Rs.1-27,

8. S.No.24/2, measuring 0-11 guntas, assessed at Rs.1-54,

9. S.No.24/1, measuring 0-12 guntas, assessed at Rs.1-68,

10. S.No.69/1, measuring 1-10 guntas, 0-02 Kharab, assessed at Rs.2-68,

11. S.No.81, out of which 2-00 acres, assessed at Rs.3-00,

The above said properties are situated at Ullappanahalli village, Ambajidurga Hobli, Chintamani taluk"

4. Suit on contest came to be decreed and operative portion of the Trial Court Judgment reads as under:

"The suit of the plaintiff is decreed as under:

It is hereby declared that the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are entitled each 1/3rd 1/9th share in the suit schedule properties and 3rd defendant is entitled 1/9th share in the suit schedule properties.

The plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd 1/9th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds acting under Sec.54 CPC.

No order as to costs."

5. Present appellant said to have purchased item Nos.1 to 9 of the suit properties from Sarojamma even before there was a partition by metes and bounds.

6. Purchaser-Thimakka was made as a party/ defendant No.4 before the Trial Court itself and shares have been allotted after due adjudication of the suit as referred to supra.

7. Being aggrieved by the same, it is the third defendant who filed appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Judge in R.A.No.41/2011, wherein the present appellant was a party/respondent said to have filed the cross objections in the said appeal. No Court fee was paid nor it was separately numbered and R.A.No.41/2011 came to be dismissed by a considered judgment dated 07.12.2016. Being aggrieved by the same, fourth defendant has now preferred the present second appeal on following grounds:

"8. The impugned judgment and order of the trial court is against facts, la and evidence in the case and as such, liable to be set-aside.

The impugned judgment and decree of the lower court is also suffers from illegalities and perversities in stamping the lower court's judgment and decree, warranting interference by this Hon'ble High Court.

The courts below failed to appreciate the facts that Defendant No.1 who got her part of share viz. 'A' Schedule Properties in terms of the family partition dated:13.08.2001 in accordance with law. And subsequently Defendant No.3 sold out the same under a registered Sale Deed dated:24.3.2003 in favour of the Appellant herein (Defendant No.4) lawfully, who became absolute owner in occup