( 1 ) THE appellant herein was the plaintiff No. 2 in O. S. No. 42/1992 on the file the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) chitradurga. The said suit was filed by the present appellant along with her brother Ravi, claiming partition and separate possession of 17/36 share in the suit schedule properties and for mesne profits.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the plaint averments, the plaintiff Ravi and Roopa are the children of one Jellur musturappa, the first defendant in the suit. They were born out of the wedlock of the first defendant with Smt. Bharathamma and that the first defendant or neglected to maintain the plaintiffs and their mother Bharathamma. Therefore, they have taken shelter in the house of their maternal grand-father. The plaintiffs claim their 2/3 share in all the suit schedule properties contending that the suit properties are joint family properties and further contended that the first defendant has to perform the marriage of the second plaintiff and she has to be maintained till her marriage. The appellant also claimed a share in all the suit schedule properties.

( 3 ) THE defendants contested the suit. According to the defendants, the plaintiffs are not having a share to an extent of 17/36 in all the suit schedule properties. It is contended that the 3rd defendant is also having daughters by name Annapurna and Thippamma and they are also having 1/5th share in all the suit schedule properties and they are also necessary and proper parties to the suit. It is the case of the defendants that the second plaintiff is not having any share. According to them, the first plaintiff is having 1/2 share out of the share of his father, first defendant. The first defendant is having 1/3rd +1/5th share in the suit schedule properties and therefore they requested the court to dismiss the said suit.

( 4 ) BASED on the above pleadings, following issues were framed by the Trial Court. (i) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 3? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the 1st defendant is to meet the marriage expenses of the 2nd plaintiff including her maintenance till her marriage? (iii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? (iv) Whether the Is' defendant proves that he has incurred debts as stated in para 3 of the written statement? (v) Whether the plaintiff are entitled for 17/36th share in all the suit properties? (yi) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs claimed? (vii) To what order and decree.

( 5 ) DURING the pendency of the suit, both the plaintiffs attained majority and their guardian was discharged. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the first plaintiff was examined as P. W. 1. Plaintiffs relied upon Ex. P1 to Ex. P. 23. On behalf of the defendants, defendants 1 and 2 were examined as d. W. 2 and one Witness was examined as D. W. 3. They relied upon Ex. D1 to Ex. D5.

( 6 ) THE Trial Court after considering the evidence adduced by the parties held issue No. 1 as affirmative, issues 2 to 4 as negative, issue No. 5 was held that the first plaintiff is entitled to 17/108 share in the suit schedule properties, issue No. 6 was held partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative. The suit of the plaintiffs was decreed in part declaring that the first plaintiff alone is entitled for 17/108 share in all the suit schedule properties. The prayer of the second plaintiff who is the appellant herein was rejected.

( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, both the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the Principal District Judge in R. A. No. 5/2002. The Lower Appellate Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, formulated the following points for its consideration: (1) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to lead additional evidence before this court as prayed in i. A. No. I? (ii) Whether the second plaintiffs entitled to any, share in the suit properties? (iii) To what