JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench in Writ Petition No.102875 of 2021 (GM-CPC), whereby the High Court allowed the writ petition preferred by respondent no.1 herein,¹[Defendant No.5 (Goparappa) in OS No.165 of 1999.] and set aside the findings returned by the First Appellate Court,²[Court of Senior Civil Judge at Kushtagi in R.A.98/2015.] in Paragraph 24. Aggrieved thereof, the appellants,³[Defendant No.1 (Basamma) and Defendant No.6 (Shivayya) in OS No.165 of 1999.] are before us.

3. The genesis of the present case lies in a suit for partition and separate possession being O.S. No.165 of 1999 instituted before the Court of Civil Judge & JMFC at Kushtagi,⁴[Hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’.] by the plaintiffs, Veerabasamma (predecessor-in-interest of respondent no.2 herein) and Malakajamma (predecessor-in-interest of Respondent Nos.11 to 14 herein). The plaintiffs sought relief of partition and separate possession of 2/3rd share in the suit schedule properties. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties originally belonged to one Basayya,⁵[Also referred to as ‘Basaiah’.]. He had a son, namely Basalingaiah, and the plaintiffs were Basayya’s daughters, and sisters of Basalingaiah. Upon the demise of Basayya, the khata in respect of the suit properties was mutated in the name of Basalingaiah, being the male descendant in the family. However, despite the mutation, the plaintiffs claim that they continued to remain in joint possession thereof. It is further the case of the plaintiffs that Basalingaiah died in the year 1983, leaving behind defendant no.1 (appellant no.1 herein), Basamma (daughter) as his sole heir. Thereafter, the defendant no.1 allegedly got khata of the suit properties mutated in her name without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiffs and subsequently began asserting exclusive ownership over the suit schedule properties by creating third-party interests. Aggrieved thereby, the suit for partition and separate possession came to be instituted. For ready reference, below is the family genealogy:

4. The suit was contested by Basamma (defendant no.1) and the subsequent purchasers, who disputed the plaintiffs’ claim over the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1, in her written statement, though admitted the relationship between the plaintiffs and her father Basalingaiah, however, contended that the plaintiffs had no kind of interest in the suit properties, as they were self-acquired. The subsequent purchasers, specifically defendant nos.2, 5, and 6, consistently supported the stand taken by defendant no.1 and contended that they were the bona fide purchasers of the suit schedule properties.

5. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 20.04.2015, dismissed the suit for partition and separate possession. The Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to prove their right over the suit schedule properties and further observed that defendant no.1, being the owner, had every right to alienate the suit properties. It was also observed that the possession of the purchasers over the suit schedule properties cannot be disbelieved. Relevant part thereof is extracted hereunder for ready reference:

“25. For the reasons stated above come to conclusion that, plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit properties were acquired by Basaiah. Though defendant No. 1 & 6 failed to prove the alleged partition, have succeeded in establishing that suit item 1, 4 & 5 was self-acquisition of defendant No.1. Accordingly, I answer issue No.l & 2 in the negative and Issue No.3 in the affirmative.

… … …

29. Additional issue No.1 to 4:- Defendant No.l sold suit item No.2 under Ex..D-4 sale deed dated 23-01-2001 in favour of defendant No.2. She sold suit item No.1 under Ex.D-10 sale deed dated 10-11-1999 in favour of defendant No.3. She sold suit item No.3 under Ex.D-9 sale deed dt: 16-7-1999 to