( 1 ) R. S. A. No. 586 of 1994 has been filed by defendant 1 and R. S. A. No. 1030 of 1994 has been filed by defendants 2 to 5 against the judgment and decree passed in RA. No. 27 of 1987 by the First Additional District judge, Belgaum allowing cross-objections of the plaintiff and dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants confirming the judgment and decree dated 4-4-1987 passed in O. S. No. 271 of 1984 by the Principal Civil judge, Belgaum and thus decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in entirety.

( 2 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellants in both the appeals and respondent I/plaintiff.

( 3 ) FOR convenience sake, appellant in R. S. A. No. 586 of 1994 is referred to as defendant 1 and the appellants in R. S. A. No. 1030 of 1994 are referred to as defendants 2 to 5. Respondent 1 as the plaintiff, respondents 2 to 10 as Defendants 7 to 15, respondents 11 to 15 as defendants 2 to 6.

( 4 ) THE facts of the case, briefly, stated are as follows: One Huvappa nesarkar was the original propositus who died on 19-9-1969, leaving behind him his sons, defendant 1, Tukaram, defendant 7, Shivaji, defendant 8, Vasant, defendant 9, Appanna and plaintiff-Sambhaji. Tukaram is the eldest of all the brothers and the plaintiff is the youngest. The 1st defendant and defendants 7 to 9 are the brothers of the plaintiff. The suit schedule property is an agricultural land which was purchased by the deceased Huvappa out of joint family funds and out of his own earnings and from the nucleus of the funds. During the lifetime of Huvappa, defendant 1 and defendants 7 to 9 constituted joint family. Huvappa being the manager and kartha of the joint family along with his sons was cultivating all the agricultural lands belonging to. joint family. Father of the plaintiff viz. , Huvappa inherited some ancestral properties including agricultural lands after the death of plaintiffs grandfather. The ancestral properties in the hands of Huvappa were being cultivated jointly by him, defendant 1 and defendants 7 to 9 jointly. During the lifetime of Huvappa, he purchased the suit property in the name of the eldest son-defendant 1 under the impression that if all the agricultural lands stand in his name, perhaps provisions of Land Ceiling Act would be attracted and he would lose the lands. Under the advice of defendant1, Huvappa purchased the suit land out of the joint family agricultural income. Even though the suit land stood in the name of defendant 1, it was cultivated jointly by all the coparceners viz. , plaintiff, defendant 1 and defendants 7 to 9. After the death of Huvappa, plaintiff, defendant 1 and defendants 7 to 9 were cultivating the suit property and were in possession and enjoyment of the same. There is no partition in the joint family.

( 5 ) PLAINTIFF and other defendants learnt that defendant 1 created document alleged to be sale deed in the names of defendants 2 to 6 on 5-9-1984. Plaintiff and defendants 7 to 9 are not parties to the said sale deed which is not binding to the extent of interest of the plaintiff and defendants 7 to 9. Plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule property of his 1/5th share, for a declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant 1 in favour of defendants 2 to 6 is void and as such not binding on the interest of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 9 and for mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12, Civil procedure Code.

( 6 ) PLAINTIFF, defendant 1 and defendants 7 to 9 are brothers inter se. Defendant 1, Tukaram is the eldest brother, defendants 11 to 14 are sisters of the plaintiff. Defendant 15 appears to be the son of plaintiffs deceased sister. Defendant 10 is the mother of the plaintiff. Defendant 1, the eldest brother and defendants 2 to 6 filed written statements and contested the case and defendants 11 to 15 are the alienees. They have also contested the case.

( 7 ) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by the Tria