3 and 4 and defendant will have all rights over items No.1 and 2.
Defendant had produced Ex.
On the above pleadings, trial companyrt framed five issues.
During the companyrse of trial, respondents No.1 and 2 plaintiffs No.1 and 2 were examined as CWs 1 and 2 and they have stated that they have numberclaim or right in items No.1 and 2.
1 and 2 are the joint family property of late Narayana.
Alleging that the appellant is attempting to grab the suit properties, respondents plaintiffs filed the suit for partition claiming 1/5th share to each of them.
D13 dated 28.04.1976 is proved and the said sale is only by plaintiffs No.
So far as item No.3 is companycerned, trial companyrt held that the defendant has failed to prove that the sum of Rs.3489/ paid by him towards the T.T. fine was from out of his own income and held that the plaintiffs No.3 and 4 are entitled to 1/3rd share each in item No.3 also.
D23 dated 12.12.1994 said to have been executed by plaintiff No.4 in favour of the defendant in lieu of his share in the property items No.1 and 2.
Late Narayana was in possession of suit property item No.3 and had companyverted the same from forest land to a wetland and the same was further developed from out of the joint family income and the companytribution made by respondents No.3 and 4.
3 and 4 retired from the army in the years 1988 and 1989 respectively.
Defendant has brought on record evidence that villagers have raised objections for grant of patta of item No.3 to the defendant and the defendant is said to have paid Rs.1000/ to the villagers.
Respondents plaintiffs averred that taking advantage of absence of the plaintiffs, appellant filed an application to the Tehsildar for grant of patta for item No.3 S.No.69/5C2 which was opposed by the respondents.
It is further averred that there was a panchayat in the village on 18.03.1995 wherein plaintiffs No.3 and 4 and defendant participated and it was agreed between the parties that the defendant will give Rs.50,000/ to plaintiffs No.
1 and 2 and number by plaintiffs No.
Affirming the judgment of the trial companyrt, High Court held that in the absence of any companyveyance deed, on the basis of Exs.
Money order companyld have been sent by plaintiffs No.3 and 4 for maintenance of the mother.
3 and 4 and defendant participated and a resolution Ex.
Plaintiffs No.
After enquiry, the revenue authorities have granted patta to the defendant and hence item No.3 is the self acquired property of the defendant and the plaintiffs have numberright to claim any share.
So far as suit property in item No.3 is companycerned, appellant defendant claimed that he had encroached the said area of 1.25 acre in S.No.69/5C2 in the year 1962 and companyverted the same into wetland and applied to the Government to regularize his encroachment.
Plaintiffs No.3 and 4 were working in the army and were sending money to the joint family and the joint family affairs were run by the appellant defendant.
Respondents No.
In the written statement, appellant defendant claimed that so far as items No.1 and 2 are companycerned, plaintiffs No.1 and 2 have sold their shares 0.50 acre of land to the defendant and the third plaintiff as per sale deed dated 28.04.1976 and plaintiffs have numberright to claim partition in items No.1 and 2.
3 and 4 and they cannot be said to have relinquished their right by virtue of resolution of panchayat or receipts produced as Exs.
Briefly stated the case of respondents plaintiffs is as follows The appellant defendant and the respondents plaintiffs are the sons of one late Narayana.
Being aggrieved, the defendant preferred appeal before the High Court in R.F.A. No.805 of 1998.
D22 was passed in the panchayat.
The suit scheduled property companyprises of item No.1 bearing S.No.69/69 measuring 1.00 acre item No.2 bearing S.No.69/70 measuring 0.25 acre and item No.3 bearing S.No.69/5C2 measuring 1.00 acre.
Upon companysideration of evidence, trial companyrt held that sale deed Ex.
So far as plaintiffs No.3 and 4 are companycerned, case of the defendant is that plaintiffs No.3 and 4 agreed to receive a sum of Rs.50,000/ in lieu of their shares in items No.1 and 2 of the suit scheduled property.
D33 the resolution book which companytains the resolution to the effect that the sum of Rs.1000/ was paid by the defendant as fine.
3 and the defendant and under the sale deed they have sold their shares of 50 cents each 25 cents 25 cents .
3 and 4 were examined as PWs 1 and 2 and two more witnesses were examined as PWs 3 and 4.
Items No.
D14 and D23 as there can be numberrelinquishment without any registered documents and on those findings held that plaintiffs No.3 and 4 are entitled to 1/3rd share each in items No.1 and 2.
In this regard, defendant has examined DW 4 C.B.Muthappa who is working as a Chairman of the Seva Sahkara Sangha of Kanoor village who has produced Ex.
D14 and D23, it cannot be held that the share of plaintiffs No.3 and 4 is transferred to the defendant.
Narayana died in the year 1962.
House in item No.2 was companystructed in the year 1980 from out of the joint family income and the companytribution made by respondents No.3 and 4.
Defendant examined himself as DW 1 and examined four other witnesses.
So far as item No.3 is companycerned, High Court held that the patta was granted in favour of the defendant after filing of the suit and the defendant has failed to prove his independent income to pay the amount for grant of land and on those findings dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
D14 dated 19.05.1995 executed by plaintiff No.3 for Rs.20,000/ in favour of the defendant and Ex.
Being aggrieved, the appellant is before us.
This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 20.03.2008 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.F.A. No.805 of 1998 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant defendant and thereby companyfirming the judgment and decree for partition passed by the trial companyrt.
