V. Jagannathan, J.

1. The appellants herein were the plaintiffs before the trial court in O.S.No. 101/1996 and the said suit filed by them for partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule properties came to be dismissed by the trial court and hence this first appeal by them.

2. The case of the plaintiffs before the trial court can be indicated first by referring to the genealogical table which the plaintiffs themselves have described in their plaint and the said table is as under:

Sangavva Somayya Shiddayya Sattigeri Shanthabai

(Died in 1938-39) (Died in 1968) (Died in 1990)

Muktha Geetha Kom Gangadhara

(Died in 1964) Hiremath (Defendant-1)

Veerayya Smt. Gurudevi Smt. Akkamahadevi Basavaraj

Mahantayya Kom Shiva Kom Shanthayya Mahanthayya

Koppada Putrayya Hiremath Suragimath Koppada

(Plft-1) (Plft-3) (Plft-4) (Plft-2)

3. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that they, being the children of Muktha, are entitled to their share in the suit schedule properties because, following the death of the original propositus Somayya, only the plaintiffs and the first defendant were left behind and as the suit properties were the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the first defendant, the plaintiffs are entitled to their share in the suit schedule properties. The defendants, who are the respondents herein, contended before the trial court that Sangavva was not the wife of the original propositus Somayya and, therefore, the question of Sangavva’s daughter Muktha being entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties did not arise and so also the plaintiffs, being entitled to their share by stepping into the shoes of Muktha. It was the specific case of the defendants that Sangavva was not the wife of Somayya but, on the other hand, Somayya had married Shanthabai and first defendant Geetha is the daughter of the said couple Somayya and Shanthabai. Following the death of Somayya, the suit properties fell into the hands of Shanthabai and later, following the death of Shanthabai, the first defendant became the owner of the suit schedule properties. During her lifetime, Shanthabai and her daughter Geetha sold one of the suit items i.e., item No. 1(d), in favour of the second defendant. Subsequently, the above said Geetha also sold one of the suit items i.e., item No. 1(c), in favour of the third defendant. Therefore, the defendants conten- ded that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any share in the suit items and moreover, the suit schedule properties were the self-acquired properties of Somayya.

4. The above pleadings of the parties led to the following issues being framed by the trial court:

i) Whether the plaintiffs prove the genealogy tree furnished as true and correct?

ii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant-1?

iii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the sale deed executed by mother of defendant-1 Shanthabai in favour of defendant-2 on 21.3.1973 in respect of suit schedule property 3(d) is not binding on them?

iv) Whether the first defendant proves that she is the sole owner of the suit schedule property?

v) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to partition and separate possession of half share in the suit schedule property?

vi) Whether the court fee paid is sufficient?

vii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to mesne profits?

viii) What order or decree?

Additional Issues:

i) Whether plaintiffs prove that the sale deed effected by defendant-1 to favour of defendant-3 on 29.3.1996 is not binding on their shares?

ii) Whether defendant-3 proves that he is a bonafide purchaser of suit property at 3(c) for valuable consideration?

After considering the evidence let in by the parties, the trial court answered issues-1, 2, 5 and 7 in the negative and issues-4, 6 and additional issue-2 were answered in the affirmative and the learned judge of the trial court also conside