A certain set of other facts was also pleaded which may number be material for the disposal of this appeal.
In the matter on hand, the suit was filed on behalf of the minor and therefore the next friend was companypetent to represent the minor.
Since the first defendant is the father of plaintiff number2, he was the natural guardian and hence he companyld only represent plaintiff number2 and numbere else.
Signature Not Verified 2.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the first appellate Court, the unsuccessful defendant number2 Chowdamma purchaser of the property filed Regular Second Appeal before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.
The first Appellate Court allowed the Regular Appeal No.
A relief for permanent injunction was also sought.
It is relevant to numbere that at the time of filing of the suit, i.e. on 24.01.1985, the appellant number2 herein, namely, Krishna was aged about 17 years.
It is to be numbered that numberissue was raised in the trial Court with regard to companypetency of plaintiff No.1 to represent plaintiff number2 in the suit.
By the impugned judgment, the High Court has allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the plaintiff number1 being the elder brother companyld number act as the guardian of plaintiff number2 during the lifetime of Kempaiah, the father of the plaintiffs defendant number1 , inasmuch as plaintiff number1/appellant number1 was number appointed as a guardian of the minor plaintiff number 2 by any companypetent Court.
Further, admittedly numberprejudice was caused to plaintiff number 2.
The appellant number1/Plaintiff No.1 herein being the elder brother of appellant number2 filed the suit number only on his personal behalf but also on behalf of the second appellantsecond plaintiff who was a minor .
228 Date 2018.01.10 131050 IST Reason of 1989 was filed by the appellants herein plaintiffs 1 and 2 respectively in the suit praying for a declaration that the suit schedule property is the joint property of the appellants along with their father Kempaiah defendant number1 in the suit respondent number2 herein and that they are entitled to 2/3rd share in the said property that the sale deed executed by the fatherKempaiah defendant number1 in the suit respondent number2 herein in favour of defendant number2/respondent number1Chowdamma was number binding on their 2/3 rd share in the suit schedule property.
90 of 2003 filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs and decreed the suit.
Digitally signed by SARITA PUROHIT Brief facts leading to this appeal are Original Suit No.
The trial Court dismissed the suit on merits.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. The judgment dated 08.01.2013 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Regular Second Appeal No.
1102 of 2004 is called in question in this appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiffs.
