The appellants/plaintiffs have come up with this second appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 1-3-2002 passed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and Chief Judicial Magistrate at Tumkur in R.A. Nos. 13 and 18 of 1991 and judgment and decree dated 13-12-1990 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gubbi in O.S. No. 60 of 1982.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties will be referred to in their rank assigned to them before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts of the case in a nutshell are that; the plaintiff has filed the suit against defendants before the Trial Court for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties consisting of 19 items. It is the case of plaintiff that one Shankarappa had three sons namely, Lingappa, Gangaiah and Channabasavaiah; that the said Shankarappa died leaving behind the said three sons to succeed to his estate; that Lingappa 1st son died leaving behind 2nd and 3rd defendants; that 2nd son Gangaiah died leaving behind his son 1st defendant; that 3rd son Channabasavaiah died leaving behind the plaintiff; that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff and the defendants; that difference arose in the management of joint family properties; that plaintiff requested the defendants to effect partition of the joint family properties; that defendants have not complied the request of the plaintiff. Hence he filed the suit.

4. On appearance before Trial Court defendants filed written statement and contested the suit, denying the genealogy furnished by plaintiff and they further denied their relationship with plaintiff. According to them the said Shankarappa had no son by name Channabasavaiah; that the plaintiff is a stranger to the family of defendants; that plaintiff is a resident of Rampura; that the suit schedule properties are not the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants; that the said Shankarappa had only two sons namely Lingappa and Gangaiah and there was already partition of their ancestral properties about 80 years ago; that defendants are in enjoyment and possession of their respective shares; that even otherwise they have perfected their title by adverse possession. Hence, it is prayed for dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff.

5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties the Trial Court in all framed 8 issues. The plaintiff in support of his case examined himself as P.W. 1 and, got examined 11 more witness as P.Ws. 2 and 12 and got marked documents-Exs. P.1 to P.19. On behalf of the defendants, defendant 2 examined himself as D.W. 1 and also got marked documents-Exs. D.1 to D.34. During the pendency of suit the original plaintiff died and his L.Rs were brought on record. The Trial Court after considering the material evidence placed before it came to the conclusion that the deceased original plaintiff is the grandson of propositor Shankarappa and further held that suit schedule properties item Nos. 6, 8 and 10 are the ancestral properties. Accordingly, decreed the suit of plaintiff for partition of his 1/3rd share in respect of suit schedule properties item Nos. 6, 8 and 10. Being not satisfied with the said judgment and decree the L.Rs of the deceased original plaintiff preferred appeal R.A. No. 18 of 1991 and the defendants preferred R.A. No. 13 of 1991 before the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and CJM, Tumkur, the learned Civil Judge after hearing the Counsel for both parties, considering the materials placed before it allowed R.A. No. 13 of 1991 filed by defendants setting aside the judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and dismissed the R.A. No. 18 of 1991 filed by the plaintiffs, holding that though plaintiffs are belong to the joint family of propositor Shankarappa and though the suit schedule properties except item No. 13 are the joint family properties, the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Hence the pl