Dissatisfied with the preliminary decree, the defendants filed first appeal being R.F.A. No.
The wife who is the second appellant also would be entitled to a share in the partition.
3052 of 2010, which in turn arises out of the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2010 passed by the Ist Additional Civil Judge Sr.
Shashidhar divorced to Uma and re married to Manjula defendant number4 .
It was held that plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of their 1/6th share each in some properties specified in the decree whereas 1/10th share each in other suit properties as specified in the decree.
The defendants companytested the civil suit by denying the plaintiffs claim.
Shashidhar was married to Uma and out of this wedlock, three daughters were born Ashwini plaintiff number 1 , Nivedita plaintiff number2 and Puja who was given in adoption to Umas sister.
The disputes unfortunately companyld number be settled amicably which led to filing of civil suit by the daughters of defendant No.1 from his first wife Uma deceased against the other members of the family, i.e., their father, step mother and step sisters for determination of their respective shares, partition by meets and bounds and separate possession in the suit properties held and possessed by the members of the family of late Basavantayya .
This is how the entire preliminary decree became the subject matter of first appeal filed by the defendants.
Division at Hubli in Original Suit No.
On his death and also on the death of his one unmarried daughter Rajeshwari, disputes arose between his legal representatives regarding their respective shares in the properties and also regarding ownership of some members of his family in relation to certain properties standing in the name of members of his family.
In order to appreciate the short issue involved in this appeal, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts One Basavantayya Revanayya Mathad was married to Shantakka Mathad defendant number 2 .
1 and 2 and respondent Nos.1 and 2 will have 1/4th share each in item Nos.1 and 4 of the suit properties.
Out of this wedlock, three children were born one son Shashidhar defendant number1 and two daughters Rajeshwari Died in 2003 and Gayatri Died in 2004 defendant number3.
1 and 2 are entitled to a share as companyparceners in the ancestral properties.
In that view, the appellant Nos.
3052 of 2010 and the plaintiffs filed cross objections being R.F.A. CROB No.
The trial Court framed issues.
It is against this judgment and order, the defendants have filed this appeal by way of special leave.
73 of 2004.
Parties adduced evidence.
Out of this second marriage, two daughters were born Aishwarya defendant number5 and Vaishnavi defendant number6 .
Basavantayya had extensive properties.
By judgment and decree dated 10.02.2010, the trial Court partly decreed the plaintiffs suit and accordingly passed preliminary decree in relation to the suit properties.
On 21.07.1991, Basavantayya died leaving behind him the aforementioned members of his family.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
This appeal is filed by the defendants against the judgment and order dated 06.12.2012 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad in Regular First Appeal No.
103 of 2011 under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in short the Code .
By impugned judgment and order dated 06.12.2012, the Division Bench of the High Court disposed of the appeal and cross objections and modified the judgment and decree of the trial companyrt to the detriment of the defendants.
