This appeal is by the plaintiffs calling in question the legality and validity of the judgment and decree dated 27-5-1997 passed in O.S. No. 1760 of 1990 on the file of the XII Additional City Civil Judge (CCH 14), Bangalore.

2. The plaint averments, in brief, are:

Appellants and respondents 3 to 8 are daughters while respondents 1 and 2 the sons of late K Srinivasulu. Respondents 9 and 10 are the tenants of item Nos. 2 and 3 of the suit schedule immovable properties, respectively

3. The suit is one for partition and separate possession of 1/10th share each of the plaintiffs, in the suit schedule properties and 1/10th share each, in their mother's 1/3rd share, in item No.2 to the suit schedule properties. Sri K Srinivasulu did originally hail from Dhannavaram, in Cuddappah District of Andhra Pradesh, and having set up business in Bangalore, was eventually a successful silk and cloth merchant. The said K Srinivasulu died intestate on 22-12-1970 leaving behind extensive properties both movable and immovable said to have been acquired out of his self-exertion, in addition to substantial interests in business undertakings, earning huge profits. The plaintiffs assert that when their father commenced business at Bangalore, defendants 1 and 2 were infants and that the properties were never treated as joint family properties but self-acquisitions. Smt. K. Singaramma wife of K. Srinivasulu and mother of plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 8 is said to have died intestate on 10-9-1983.

4. It is the allegation of the plaintiffs that whenever they and defendants 3 to 7, for purposes of brevity (hereinafter referred to as 'sisters'), visited their brothers defendants 1 and 2, after the death of their parents, on the representations made by their brothers, having reposed faith and confidence in them, affixed their signatures on several papers in good faith, though m retrospect were fraudulent misrepresentations in respect of the properties left behind by their late father. The 2nd plaintiff alleges that when she visited Bangalore on 15-7-1983, she affixed her signature to a power of attorney, while the 1st plaint did so in the office of the Advocate for defendants 1 and 2, without any knowledge of the contents of the said document. It is the further allegation of the plaintiffs that on 5-8-1983, at the behest of defendants 1 and 2 they, along with defendants 3 to 8 as also their mother Smt. Singaramma, affixed their signatures in good faith, on a deed of partition without realizing the fraudulent intention and diabolical design of defendants 1 and 2.

5. The plaintiffs state that during 1988 on a rumour that defendants 1 and 2 had appropriated to themselves all the properties of their parents, questioned the defendants, who gave evasive replies, and later on became aggressive and rude. On painstaking enquiries, the plaintiffs having become aware of the evil design of defendants 1 and 2 to deprive the sisters of their legitimate shares in the suit schedule properties, caused a notice dated 4-3-1988 through their legal Counsel, on defendants 9 and 10, while addressing a copy to defendants 1 and 2, cancelling the power of attorney and questioning the validity of the partition deed, in addition to sending a telegram dated 12-2-1988 to the 1st defendant, revoking the power of attorney.

6. The plaintiffs contend that being women and residents of Cuddappah in Andhra Pradesh, took considerable time to collate all material particulars and hence, the suit for partition was instituted on 21-3-1990 by paying a fixed Court fee of Rs. 200/- under Section 35(2) of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act of 1958').

7. The suit is opposed by defendants 1 and 2 by filing their written statement dated 2-7-1991. The relationship between the parties is admitted. It is contended that late K. Srinivasulu along with his three brothers, all children of late Kasetty Rangappa, constituted a joint Hindu family which possessed pro