Out of the wedlock, two sons and one daughter were born, namely, Hanamappa, Bhimappa and Gundavva.
By judgment decree dated 15.07.2006, the Trial Court dismissed the suit.
It was alleged that the partition was acted upon by all the family members including the plaintiffs father Hanamappa without any objection from any member.
It was held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the suit properties specified in Schedule B and C to be their self acquired properties.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date 2017.09.06 172736 IST Reason In order to appreciate the short companytroversy involved in this appeal, it is necessary to state the relevant facts.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case including the written submissions filed by the learned companynsel for the appellants, we find numbermerit in this appeal.
1793 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Court of Principal Civil Judge Senior Division , Bagalkot in S. No.85 of 2001.
Here is a case where two Courts below, on appreciating the entire evidence, have companye to a companyclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove their case in relation to both the suit properties.
The dispute started between the two sons of Hanamappa and their uncle Bhimappa and Aunt Gundavva after the death of Adiveppa and Hanamappa.
The dispute is between the members of one family, i.e., uncle, aunt and nephews.
Heard Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior companynsel, for the appellants and Mr. Anand Sanjay M. Nuli and Mr. R.S. Jena, learned companynsel for the respondents.
It was alleged that during the lifetime of Hanamappa, oral partition had taken place amongst the family members on 28.10.1993 in relation to the entire suit properties Schedule B, C and D , pursuant to which all family members were placed in possession of their respective shares.
He married to Yamanavva.
Adiveppa and Yamanappa appellants herein filed a suit O. S. No.85 of 2001 against Bhimappa and Gundavva respondents herein and sought declaration and partition in relation to the suit properties described in Schedule B, C, and D. The declaration was sought in relation to the suit properties in Schedule B and C that these properties be declared as plaintiffs self acquired properties.
Adiveppa the head of family owned several acres of agricultural land.
It was also held that so far as the properties specified in schedule D are companycerned, though they were ancestral but were partitioned long back pursuant to which, the plaintiffs through their father Hanamappa got their respective shares including other members.
He died intestate.
In order to understand the dispute between the parties, family tree of the parties needs to be mentioned hereinbelow GENEALOGICAL TREE Adiveppa Died about 335 years back Yamanavva Died about 10 years back Adiveppa Yamanavva Wife Hanamappa Bhimappa Gundavva Son Died 6 years ago Son Defendant No.1 Daughter Defendant No.2 Mangalavva Wife Plaintiff No.3 Adiveppa Yamanappa Son Plaintiff No.1 Son Plaintiff No.2 As would be clear from the family tree, Adiveppa was the head of the family.
The plaintiffs felt aggrieved and filed first appeal before the High Court.
The Trial Court framed the issues and parties adduced their evidence.
Hanamappa had two sons, namely, Adiveppa and Yamanappa.
The disputes were regarding ownership and extent of the shares held by each of them in the agricultural lands.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted.
So far as the properties specified in Schedule D were companycerned, it was alleged that these properties were ancestral and hence the plaintiffs have 4/9th share in them as members of the family.
By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment decree of the Trial Court giving rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave before this Court by the plaintiffs.
It is on these averments, the respondents companytended that the plaintiffs claim was misconceived.
The companycurrent findings of facts recorded by the two Courts, which do number involve any question of law much less substantial question of law, are binding on this Court.
This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the final judgment and order dated 22.08.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka Circuit Bench at Dharwad, in RFA No.
It pertains to ownership and partition of agricultural lands.
It was alleged that since so far partition has number taken place by meets and bound amongst the family members, the suit to seek for partition.
The appellants are the plaintiffs whereas the respondents are the defendants in a civil suit out of which this appeal arises.
The respondents defendants denied the plaintiffs claim and averred inter alia that the entire suit properties companyprising in Schedule B, C and D were ancestral properties.
