Appasaheb S/O Shantappa Biradar ... vs Mareppa S/O Kantappa Biradar And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6919 Kant

                             1




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                         BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL

                  RSA No.200228/2014


BETWEEN:

01.     APPASAHEB S/O SHANTAPPA BIRADAR
        AGE: 44 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
        R/O: SHIRSHYAD VILLAGE TQ; INDI
        DIST: BIJAPUR-586 209

02.     MALLAPPA S/O SHANTAPPA BIRADAR
        AGE: 39 YEARS OCC: SERVICE
        R/O: SHIRSHYAD VILLAGE TQ: INDI
        DIST: BIJAPUR-586 209.

03.     SMT. MERUBAI W/O SHARANAPPA DEVARAMANI
        AGE: 34 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
        R/O: BANDAL VILLAGE, TQ: SINDAGI
        DIST: BIJAPUR - 586 128.
                                       ... APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. AJAYKUMAR A. K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

01.     MAREPPA S/O KANTAPPA BIRADAR
        AGE: 44 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
        R/O: SHIRSHYAD VILLAGE
        TQ: INDI DIST: BIJAPUR - 586 209.
                           2




02.   KALLAPPA S/O KANTAPPA BIRADAR
      AGE: 40 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
      R/O: SHIRSHYAD VILLAGE TQ: INDI
      DIST: BIJAPUR-586 209.

03.   DASHARATH S/O: KANTAPPA BIRADAR
      AGE: 37 YEARS OCC: AGRICULTURE
      R/O: SHIRSHYAD VILLAGE TQ: INDI
      DIST: BIJAPUR-586 209.

04.   SMT. GANGABAI W/O KANTAPPA BIRADAR
      AGE: 68 YEARS OCC: HOUSEHOLD
      R/O: SHIRSHYAD VILLAGE TQ: INDI
      DIST: BIJAPUR-586 209.
                                   ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. GANESH S.KALABURAGI, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, ADV., FOR R1TOR4)


      THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL BY SETTING ASIDE THE
JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 10.01.2013 PASSED IN
O.S.NO.175/2011 BY THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, INDI AND
WHICH IS CONFIRMED IN R.A.NO.27/2013 BY THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BIJAPUR VIDE JUDGMENT
AND DECREE DATED 04.07.2014 AND CONSEQUENTLY
DISMISS THE SUIT OF THE PLAINTIFFS/RESPONDENTS.

      THIS APPEAL BEING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT,   COMING   ON   FOR   PRONOUNCEMENT     OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:-:-
                                  3




                           JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the

defendants against the judgment and decree dated

10.01.2013 passed in O.S.No.175/2011 by the Senior Civil

Judge Indi (hereinafter referred as 'Trial Court') and

against the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2014 in

R.A.No.27/2013 passed by the II Additional District Judge,

Bijapur (hereinafter referred as 'the First Appellate Court').

02. The parties are referred to as per their ranks

before the Trial Court.

03. The subject matter of the suit is the

immovable property bearing:-

A. Bl.No.340/2 measuring 04 acres 03 guntas situated at Shirashyad Village Indi Taluka.

B. Bl.No.340/3 measuring 16 acres 38 guntas situated at Shirashyad Village Indi Taluka.

04. The case of the plaintiffs is that;

a. One Balawant the original propositus had two sons by

name Mareppa and Chandram. Mareppa had four sons

by name Mallappa, Gurusiddappa, Shantappa and

Kantappa. Since, the second son of Balawant namely

Chandram did not have a children, he adopted third son

of Mareppa namely Shantappa. Kantappa the forth son

of Mareppa died leaving behind his wife Gangabai

(plaintiff No.4) three sons namely Mareppa (plaintiff

No.1), Kallappa (plaintiff No.2), Dasharath (plaintiff

No.3). Shantappa (who was the third son of Mareppa

adopted by Chandram), died leaving behind his wife the

defendant No.4 and two sons and a daughter by name

Appasaheb (defendant No.1), Mallappa (defendant No.2)

Merubai (defendant No.3). Thus, the defendant Nos.1 to

3 are the cousin brothers and sister of the plaintiffs No.1

to 3. Defendant No.4 is the aunt of the plaintiffs No.1 to

3 being the wife of their uncle.

b. Originally, suit properties were referred to with

R.S.No.263 measuring 16 acres 39 guntas and

R.S.No.264/2 measuring 09 acres 14 guntas, both the

lands together were measuring 26 acres 13 guntas as

evident in consolidation Takta M.E.No.1697 dated

12.08.1964. Upon the death of the original prepositus

Balawant, the said properties were succeeded by his son

Mareppa as manager of the joint family. The said

Mareppa passed away in the year 1940 and thereupon

his first son Mallappa's name was mutated in the

revenue records, as per Warasa M.E.No.654 dated

20.05.1941. Thereafter, the said Mallappa passed away

in the year 1943 and consequently name of his brother

Gurusiddappa was mutated in the revenue records, as

per Warasa M.E.No.718. Thus, Gurusiddappa and the

grandfather of defendants No.1 to 3 namely Chandram

were in joint possession and cultivation of both the

properties, thereby constituted Joint Hindu Family. That

in the year 1954 Chandram the grandfather of

defendants No.1 to 3 died. Upon his demise the name of

Shantappa his adoptive son, was mutated in respect of

the aforesaid properties on the basis of deed of adoption

as per M.E.No.1110. Thus, the said Shantappa and

Gurusiddappa were jointly cultivating the said properties

each being entitled undivided half share in the

properties. After the death of Gurusiddappa father of the

plaintiffs namely Kantappa and the father of the

defendants namely Shantappa were in joint possession

of the said properties. Thus, the plaintiffs belong to the

branch of Mareppa and the defendants belonged to the

branch of Chandram (in view of adoption of Shantappa,

the third son of Mareppa).

c.That in the year 1964 both lands in R.S.No.263 and

264/2 were consolidated as B1.No.340 totally measuring

26 acres 13 guntas including pot kharab and

consolidation Takta vide M.E.No.1697 was certified on

11.08.1964 clearly mentioning that Gurusiddappa and

Shantappa having equal share in the said land. That in

the year 1968 an extent of 05 acres 11 guntas out of

B1.No.340/A was sold to one Subhash Hanamantraya

Biradar. There is no dispute regarding the said sale.

Since, the area sold was wrongly mentioned 06 acres

instead of 05 acres 11 guntas in M.E.No.1904 the same

was rectified as 05 acres 11 guntas vide M.E.No.4467.

d. In the year 1969 the aforesaid land bearing Bl.No.340

was divided into three divisions assigning numbers

Bl.No.340/1 measuring 05 acres 11 guntas (which was

sold), B1 No.340/2 measuring 16 acres 38 guntas

(which was mutated in the name of Shantappa, the

father of the defendants No.1 to 3) and Bl.No.340/3

measuring 04 acres 03 guntas (which was mutated in

the name of Kantappa the father of plaintiffs No.1 to 3).

The division of property and assignment of numbers

Bl.No.340/2 and Bl.No.340/3 was without partition by

metes and bounds. There was no actual partition

between the father of the plaintiff and the father of the

defendants during their lifetime as there were in joint

possession and cultivation of the said land. Upon the

demise of Kantappa and Shantappa, plaintiffs and

defendants formed a joint family and their names

continued in the revenue records without any partition

by metes and bounds.

e. That in the year 1991, father of the defendants No.1 to

3 died leaving behind them as his legal heirs and

Warasa M.E.No.4250 was entered in their names in

respect of land Bl.No.340/2 without the knowledge of

the plaintiffs. Though, till his death the properties were

in joint possession. The said entry in the name of the

defendants in respect of the entire portion of 16 acres

38 guntas in Bl.No.340/2 is illegal and contrary to the

law, as the father of the defendants Shantappa had only

half share therein.

f. That in the year 1994 the defendants got measurement

of the land Bl.340 measuring 26 acres 13 guntas done,

without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Though the

division of the properties as 04 acres 03 guntas bearing

Bl.No.340/2 and measuring 16 acres 38 guntas bearing

Bl.No.340/3 was done, the properties remained

ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and

defendants, there has been no partition at any point of

time in respect of the suit properties. Thus, the plaintiff

all together are entitled to half share and defendants

together are entitled for half share in both properties.

The defendants by deleting the half share of the father

of the defendants No.1 to 3, illegally got their names

entered into by way of Warasa M.E.No.4250 in the

records of right in respect of property bearing

Bl.No.340/3. The plaintiffs and defendants are in joint

possession and cultivation the lands.

g. That since, there were difference of opinion, plaintiffs

during month of August-2008 asked the defendants to

allot their half share by metes and bounds. The

defendants refused to allot the share of the plaintiffs in

the suit properties. When the plaintiffs obtained certified

copies of ROR, they learnt that the suit properties

bearing Bl.340/3 is in the name of defendants No.1 and

3 only, as they in collusion with each other got

compromise decree in O.S.No.66/2004 by filing a suit

without having any absolute right over the said

properties. The defendants had not impleaded the

plaintiffs in the said suit, even though they had half

share in the said properties. The said compromise

decree in O.S.No.66/2004 passed by the Civil Judge

(Junior Division) Indi on 19.06.2004 is not binding upon

the plaintiffs' half share in the suit properties bearing

B1.No.340/3 measuring 16 acres 38 guntas. That after

the compromised defendants No.1 and 2 have got their

names entered into vide M.R.No.286/2004-05. The

plaintiffs challenged the same and sought for

cancellation before the Assistant Commissioner in

RTS/AP.No.44/2008-09. The said appeal is pending.

Apprehending that the legitimate share of the plaintiffs

would be defeated, they constrained to file the suit for

declaration that the compromise decree passed by Civil

Judge (Junior Division) Indi on 19.06.2004 in

O.S.No.66/2004 is not binding on their half share of the

properties bearing B1.340/3 measuring 16 acres 38

guntas and partition of their half share in the suit

properties bearing B1.No.340/2 measuring 04 acres 03

guntas and Bl.No.340/3 measuring 16 acres 38 guntas

and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants

from transferring the suit properties bearing Bl.340/3

measuring 16 acres 38 gunatas till actual possession of

their share allotted to them.

05. The case of the defendants is that:-

a) The defendant No.1 has filed the written statement

which is adopted by the defendants No.2 and 3 by

filing a memo, denying that the defendant No.4 is

the wife of the uncle of plaintiffs and also denying

that the suit properties are ancestral and joint family

properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. It is

contended by the defendants that as per the family

arrangements between the father of the plaintiffs,

Gurusiddappa and Shantappa, properties were

partitioned and divisions were made. Accordingly,

they were enjoying the properties separately, as per

the fertility of soil. The land allotted to the share of

father of the defendants is not a fertile land

compared to land allotted to the share of

Gurusidippa and father of plaintiffs. Therefore, he

got larger area then that of the father of the

plaintiffs. The father of the plaintiffs and their uncle

Gurusiddappa and the father of the defendants No.1

to 3 have been living separately even before 1968 by

taking their share in the ancestral properties. Hence,

in the year 1968 Gurusiddappa had sold R.S.340/A

measuring 06 acres to one Subhash on 10.03.1968

for their family necessity in their portion of the land.

In the remaining lands father of the plaintiffs and

Gurusidappa were jointly enjoying the same.

b) When Gurusiddappa died issueless, father of the

plaintiffs was only owner of the remaining portion of

land measuring 04 acres 03 guntas. Thus, it is

denied that in the year 1968 land measuring 05

acres 11 guntas out of Bl.340/A was sold to one

Subhash in joint-ness between Gurusidappa and

father of defendants No.1 to 3. The joint possession

and cultivation of land during the life time of father

of plaintiffs and father of defendants No.1 to 3 is

denied. The entering the names of father of the

plaintiffs and defendants as per the family

arrangement is admitted. However, it is denied that

both of them having half share each in both lands.

Other averments with regard to entries vide

M.E.No.4250 denied. Allegation of phot hissa

measurement of land bearing Bl.340 in the year

1994 without the knowledge of plaintiffs is also

denied. Further, averments with regard to division of

properties and obtaining compromise decree in

O.S.No.66/2004 by defendants No.1 and 2 in

collusion with each other without the knowledge of

the plaintiffs is also denied. It is specifically

contended that the father of the plaintiffs and their

uncle and father of defendants No.1 to 3 had

partitioned their ancestral properties long back and

they were cultivating their possessions of land,

separately as per fertility of land. The right, title and

interest of the plaintiffs in the land belonging to the

defendants is denied. It is further contended that the

defendants No.1 and 3 had further partitioned their

properties and were enjoying the same separately.

Hence, sought for dismissal of suit.

06. Based on the pleadings the Trial Court framed

the following issues:-

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit properties are ancestral properties of the predecessor of plaintiffs and defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they and defendants are members of undivided Hindu Joint Family and no partition took place earlier between them in respect of the suit properties.?

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the defendants behind back of plaintiffs and in colluding with each other filed O.S.No.66/2004 before Civil Court (Junior Division) Indi and the defendants have compromised in the said suit in respect of suit land and got mutated their names to the suit lands.?

4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for the relief sought for?

5. What order or decree?

07. The plaintiffs No.1 examined as PW.1 and

marked twenty-eight documents Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.28. The

defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1 and marked

fourteen documents as Exs.D.1 to Ex.D.14. One witness

namely Shankar Nagappa Telag has been examined as

DW.2.

08. The Trial Court on appreciation of material

evidence answered the issue No.1 to 4 affirmative and

decreed the suit as sought for by the plaintiffs by its

judgment and decree dated 10.01.2013.

09. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed

regular appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure

in R.A.No.27/2013 before the First Appellate Court, which

by its judgment and decree dated 04.07.2014, dismissed

the said appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the

Trial Court.

10. Aggrieved by the same the appellants are

before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal.

11. This Court by an order dated 11.08.2020 has

framed the following substantial questions of law:-

i. Whether the Trial Court, First Appellate Court finding that decreeing O.S.No.66/2004 between the defendants No.1 to 3 that the said decree is not indicative as earlier partition has resulted in mis-carriage of justice?

ii. Whether the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are justified in holding that there was no family arrangements and it was not acted upon even though there are mutation entries in this regard?

12. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants

and the learned counsel for the respondents.

13. The learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that:-

a) That the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court

erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff without

appreciating the facts that there was a partition of

the property as for back as in the year 1968 in terms

of a family arrangement which was acted upon by

the parties by effecting entries into the revenue

records.

b) That the division of the properties were made taking

into consideration the fertility of land. Since, portion

of land which was allotted to the share of

grandfather of the defendants was less fertile, they

were given more land than that of the land allotted

to the share of plaintiffs' father.

c) That after the said family arrangement Gurusiddappa

had sold 06 acres of land to one Subhash s/o

Hanamantraya Biradar in the year 1968 in exercise

of his rights over the property. The reminder of land

measuring 04 acres 03 guntas was retained by the

father of the plaintiffs.

d) That there was a division of the entire plot No.340 in

the year 1969 dividing the total extent of property

into three division as 340, 340/2 and 340/3. That

340 was assigned to the portion of the property sold

in favour of Subhash as above. That 340/2 consisted

of 04 acres 03 guntas which was retained by the

father of the plaintiffs. That 340/3 consisted of 16

acres 38 guntas which was allotted to the share of

the grandfather of the defendants.

e) That the aforesaid transactions have been reflected

in the revenue records. That the filing of suit in

O.S.No.66/2004 amongst the defendants which was

ended in a compromise cannot be found fault with as

the said suit had been filed by the defendants in

their own rights over their share of the property

which their father had acquired as above.

14. Hence, sought for allowing the appeal by

answering the substantial of questions of law in favour of

the appellant.

15. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the

respondents - plaintiffs justifying the judgment and decree

passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court

submitted that:-

a) That the defendants having admitted that the suit

properties were originally belong to the common

prepositus namely Balawant and after his demise the

property having devolved upon his two sons namely

Mareppa and the Chandram, have not led any

evidence to establish the alleged partition having

taken place between the two parties of Mareppa and

Chandram.

b) That the sale of 05 acres 11 guntas of land in the

year 1968 was during the joint-ness of the property

between Gurusidappa and the father of the

defendants. The same cannot be taken as a instance

of partition.

c) That even after division of numbers of the property

as 340/1, 340/2 and 340/3, the revenue records

continue to reflect the Hissa as 0-8-0, which

indicated that the plaintiffs and the defendants

continued to have equal half share in the property in

Block numbers 340/2 and 340/3 irrespective of there

measurement.

d) That it is only the defendants without knowledge of

the plaintiffs had got correction done in the revenue

records by deleting 0-8-0 ownership of their father in

the Kabjedar column in the year 1994.

e) Thus, he submits that the Trial Court and the First

Appellate Court has appreciated these aspect of the

matter and have decreed the suit in accordance with

law.

f) That no substantial question of law is involved in the

matter. As such, sought for dismissal of the appeal.

16. The undisputed facts are that the suit lands

originally belongs to Balawant, the original prepositus, who

had two sons by name Mareppa and Chandram. That the

said Mareppa had four sons namely Mallappa,

Gurusiddappa, Shantappa and Kantappa. That the said

Chandram the second of Balawant had no children and he

had adopted Shantappa the third son of Mareppa. That the

plaintiffs are the children and wife respectively of Kantappa

(fourth son of Mareppa) and the defendants are sons and

wife respectively of Shantappa (the adoptive son of

Chandram and also the brother of Kantappa).

17. That after the death of Balawant, the joint

family consisted of Mareppa and Chandram. That after

death of Mareppa in 1940 his elder son Mallappa along

with his brothers and uncle Chandram continued to live in

the joint family. That thereafter, Gurusiddappa the second

son of Mareppa along with his younger brother Kantappa

and uncle Chandram with his adoptive son Shantappa (also

brother of Gurusiddappa) continued as joint family. That

Chandram died in the year 1954 leaving behind the

adoptive son Shantappa. That the name of Shantappa was

entered into as successor in interest to the Estate of

Chandram. Upon the mutation of the name of Shantappa

as per M.E.No.1110, the extent of interest of Gurusiddappa

and Shantappa has been shown as 50% each in the

records of rights in respect of the properties.

18. It is necessary to note that the suit properties

earlier referred to with R.S.No.263 measuring 16 acres 39

guntas and R.S.No.264/2 measuring 09 acres 14 guntas

and were consolidated into a single block bearing No.340

with total measurement of 26 acres 13 guntas including

pot-kharab, as evidence by M.E.No.1697 dated

11.08.1964. That until the year 1968 the joint family

headed by Gurusiddappa along with plaintiffs and there

father Kantappa representing the branch of Mareppa and

Shantappa with his wife and children namely the

defendants representing the branch of Chandram,

continued as joint family.

19. That on 10.03.1968 an extent of 05 acres 11

guntas was sold by Gurusiddappa in favour of Subhash

Hanamantray Biradar.

20. It is also relevant to note, at this juncture that

the aforesaid land measuring 26 acres 13 guntas with

single Block No.340 was divided into three portions in the

year 1969 namely, 1) 05 acres 11 guntas sold to

Hanamantray Biradar with its number 340/A, 2) 03 acres

04 guntas with its number 340/2 entered in the name of

Gurusiddappa and the plaintiff and 3) 16 acres 38 guntas

with number 340/3 entered in the name of Shantappa, the

father of the defendants.

21. It is the case of the plaintiffs that though there

was a division made in respect of land in Block No.340 into

three division as above there was no actual partition by

metes and bounds between the father of the plaintiffs No.1

to 3 and father of the defendants No.1 to 3 during their life

time. That they continued in joint possession and joint

cultivation as per the family arrangement. That even after

the death of the father of the plaintiffs No.1 to 3 and the

father of the defendants No.1 to 3, the families of plaintiffs

and the defendants, constituted as joint family and the

names continued in the revenue records without any

partition.

22. On the other hand, referring to the aforesaid

incidents of sale of 05 acres 11 guntas on 10.03.1968 by

Gurusiddappa in favour of Subhash the son of Hamanatray

Biradar and subsequent division of the property into three

block Nos.340/A, 340/2 and 340/3 in the year 1969, the

defendants contended that the said sale and the

subsequent division was pursuant to the partition, which

was entered into between Gurusiddappa and Siddappa

prior to executing the sale deed dated 19.03.1968.

23. The defendants have claimed that the partition

of the properties was made based on the fertility of the

land. That since land allotted to share of father of the

defendants was having low fertility, he was allotted larger

extent of share measuring 16 acres 38 guntas. That since

land allotted to the share of Gurusidappa was having high

rate of fertility, he was allotted 09 acres 14 guntas and

that the division of three blocks was also taken into

consideration of the sale of an extent of 05 acres 11

guntas made by the Gurusiddappa out of his share of the

land. After such sale remaining extent of land guntas was

entered into in the name of the plaintiffs.

24. As rightly noted by the Trial Court and the First

Appellate Court the defendants who have set-up the plea

of oral partition prior to 1968 have not adduced any

evidence regarding the partition which they claimed to

have taken place between Gurusiddappa and Shantappa.

25. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court,

referring to successive mutation entries have noted that if

there was such partition allotting shares to Gurusiddappa

and Shantappa, based on fertility of land, the same ought

to have found entry prior to 1968. Thus, there are no

revenue records or other documents, justifying the said

claim of the defendants.

26. As rightly noted by the First Appellate Court,

Chandram the second son of Balawant, who was the

grandfather of the defendants, had never objected for

continuation of name of his brother' son Mallappa and after

his demise, Gurusiddapa to be entered in respect of the

suit schedule property as manager of the Joint Family. It is

only after death of Chandram in the year 1954, while

mutating the name of Shantappa, the shares of the

Gurusiddappa and Shantappa have been mentioned as

0-8-0 i.e., equal half to each in the revenue records.

Ex.P.17 is the extract of record of rights for the years

1964-65 till the year 1969-70, reflecting the names of

Shivarudrappa and Shantappa, being entitled for 0-8-0

jointly in respect of the land measuring 16 acres 38

guntas. When the aforesaid entries have continued in the

revenue records upto the year 1969-70 removal of the

name of Gurusiddappa from the revenue records

subsequent thereof and reflecting the name of Shantappa

alone, without any documentary evidence with regard to

any partition have been taken place, the contention of the

defendants regarding so-called prior partition, cannot be

countenanced.

27. These aspect of the matter have been rightly

taken note and appreciated by the Trial court and the First

Appellate Court, based on the documentary evidence

furnished by the parties. The Trial Court and the First

Appellate Court have rightly declined to accept the case of

the defendants regarding prior partition in the absence of

any acceptable and cogent evidence. It is settled law that

a party who set-up the plea of oral/prior partition shall

prove the same with material evidence convincing such

partition. In the instant case, except asserting that there

was partition prior to 1968 between Gurusiddappa and

Shantappa, nothing has been furnished by the defendants

to substantiate their contention.

28. When the defendants have failed to discharge

their burden of there being partition, the question that

they filing a suit amongst themselves in O.S.No.66/2004

and later entering into compromise without making

plaintiffs as parties therein in respect of the suit property

would not bind the plaintiffs. The said compromise decree

which is entered into between the defendants can hardly

be a piece of evidence indicating earlier partition between

Gurusiddappa and Shantappa. As rightly, held by the Trial

Court and the First Appellate Court, the said compromise

would not bind on the plaintiffs to the extent of their share

in the suit property.

29. For the aforesaid analysis and reasoning the

substantial questions of law formulated by this Court are

answered accordingly.

30. In the result, following

ORDER

I. The appeal in RSA.No.200228/2014 filed by the

appellants is dismissed.

II. The judgment and decree dated 10.01.2013 in

O.S.No.175/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil

Judge, Indi and the judgment and order dated

04.07.2014 passed in R.A.No.27/2013 on the file of

the II Additional District Judge, Bijapur, are

confirmed.

III. In the circumstance the parties to bear their own

costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KJJ