ORDER

1. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Notice has been issued to the all the respondents but no one is present on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 10 and 13 to 16. Ms. Neetic Sharma, learned counsel is present on behalf of respondent Nos. 11 and 12.

2. This is an appeal filed by the appellant (defendant NO.1) questioning the judgment dated 12.09.2005 of the High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 964 of 2000. The High Court by its judgment partly allowed the Regular First Appeal. Aggrieved by the said judgment, defendant No.1 has come up in this appeal.

3. Brief facts necessary for deciding this appeal are:

4. The parties shall be referred to hereinafter as described in the plaint. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 were sons of C.S. Veerappa who died on 29.11.1959. The mother of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 - Smt. Shanthaveeramma also died on 01.07.1992. The other defendants were sons, daughters and grandchildren of C.S. Veerappa. In the lifetime of C.S. Verrappa, a partition took place between him and his children. That partition was registered on 25.06.1958. In Survey No. 34, 22 cents were allotted to plaintiff and remaining 45 cents were allotted to defendant No.1.

5. Defendant No.1, in the lifetime of his father, sold an extent of 45 cents allotted to him in Survey No. 34 in favour of C.S. Veerappa and the plaintiff also sold an extent of 22 cents which came into his share in partition in Survey No.34 in favour of defendant No.1.

6. C.S. Veerappa died on 29.11.1959. Thereafter, a registered release deed dated 10.02.1960 was executed by the plaintiff in favour of his mother - Smt. Shanthaveeramma and a release deed was also executed by defendant No.1 and sisters in favour of their mother. The plaintiff purchased the property bearing Survey No. 106/1 on 26.05.1977 from Smt. Shanthaveeramma - the mother of the plaintiff. Defendant No.1 also purchased Schedule 'B' property from Smt. Shanthaveeramma for Rs.20,000/- on 04.01.1983. Another sale deed was executed by Smt. Shanthaveeramma in favour of defendant No.1 on 05.02.1983 with regard to Schedule 'A' property for consideration of Rs.47,000/-. Smt. Shanthaveeramma had also executed Will on 15.07.1985 with regard to her jewellery, movables and cash in favour of the defendants.

7. After the death of Smt. Shanthaveeramma i.e. 01.07.1992, the plaintiff filed Original Suit NO. 27/94. In the suit filed by the plaintiff, there were properties at Schedule 'A' and 'B'. Schedule 'A' (bearing Survey No. 34/2 measuring 0.37 acres), Schedule 'B' (bearing Survey No. 57/2 measuring 0.25 acres), Schedule 'C' contains movables, Schedule 'D' contains Fixed Deposit receipts and silver jewellery and articles of silver and Schedule 'E' contains gold jewellery.

8. The plaintiff case in the plaint is that the plaintiff mother was keeping ill and sale deeds dated 04.01.1983 and 05.02.1983 executed in favour of defendant No.1 were sham transaction. He further pleaded that the plaintiff has share in all the plaint Schedule properties. In the suit, the plaintiff prayed for the following reliefs:

1) For a declaration that the plaint schedule properties are the family ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 10 and the plaintiff is entitled for 1/2 share in the plaint schedule properties.

2) For a further declaration that the alleged Will dated 15.7.1985 is a sham and void document incorporating false recitals and the rank forged document and not binding over to the plaintiff.

3) To further declare that the alleged sale deeds dated 4.1.1983 and 5.2.1983 are sham and void documents and not binding over to the plaintiff.

4) For a direction for partition of the suit schedule properties into 5 equal shares by metes and bound and also allotment of one such share to the plaintiff.

5) Refer the preliminary decree to the Dy. Commissioner, Kodagu, Madikeri under Section 54 C.P.C. for partition of the plaint A and B Schedule properties into 5 equal shares by metes and bounds and