( 1. ) THIS is a plaintiffs' second appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court which has modified the shares allotted by the trial Court in a suit partition filed by them.

( 2. ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are referred to in the original suit.

Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are the sons of plaintiff No. 3 who is the wife of defendant No. l. Defendant No. 4 is the second wife of defendant No. l. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons born to the first defendant through defendant No. 4. The plaintiffs case is that, Sy. No. 177 measuring 8 acres 39 guntas, Sy. No. 177/2 measuring 8 acres 39 guntas, Sy. No. 182/2/1 measuring 4 acres 6 guntas, Sy. No. 182/2/2 measuring 4 acres 6 guntas and Sy. No. 182/3/2 measuring 4 acres 34 guntas, all situated at Kusnoor village, are ancestral properties. Sy. No. 193 measuring 13 acres of Kusnoor village was granted to defendant No. l under the provisions of the karnataka Land Reforms Act as he being the elder member of the family. House bearing Nos. 1-27 and 2-7 are also ancestral properties. Their grievance is first defendant illegally married the mother of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 about 14 years back, they are the illegitimate children. Therefore, each of the plaintiffs are entitled to l/3rd share in the coparcenary property.

( 3. ) AFTER service of summons, the first defendant entered appearance. At his instance his second wife-fourth defendant was impleaded after the matter was remanded by the lower Appellate Court when the trial Court on an earlier occasion had held the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The first defendant denied the relationship between himself and plaintiff No. 3. He denied that the fourth defendant is his second wife. He contended that the third plaintiff tried to give position to him and ran away from the house with 8 tola of gold and silver ornaments worth rs. 8,000/- without consent of defendant No. 1 by committing theft. Therefore, plaintiff No. 3 is no more his wife and only defendant No. 4 is his legally wedded wife. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 have no right to claim partition in the suit schedule item. He denied the claim of the plaintiff. He also set up a plea of partition in the year 1981 in the presence of Panchas. He contended that the suit schedule 'properties were given to his share in the said partition. Therefore, the present suit filed by the plaintiffs who have been given their share in the properties is not maintainable.

( 4. ) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 also filed an amended written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs. Fourth defendant also filed her written statement contending that she is the legally wedded wife of the first defendant and her marriage took place on 2. 2. 1955 and defendants 2 and 3 were born out of the said wedlock. First defendant married plaintiff No. 3 without her consent and behind her back and, therefore, plaintiffs I and 2 are the illegitimate children who have no right in the coparcenary property.

On the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court famed seven issues as under:

1. Whether the defendants prove that there has been an oral partition in July, 1981 as per the details given in para no. 7 of written statement?

2. Whether the defendant No. 1 proves that he has divorced the plaintiff No. 3 in the year 1967-68 and therefore she is not entitled to any share in the family property?

3. Whether defendant No. 1 further proves that Mahadevi and mother of defendant No. 2 and 3 is his legally wedded wife (deleted)?

4. Whether the defendant No. 1 proves that the lands survey no. 177 and 177/2 are his self acquired properties?

5. Whether the plaintiffs proves that they are entitled for partition of suit properties as prayed?

6. Whether the plaintiff have valued the suit property and sufficient Court fee has been paid?

7. What order or decree? the third issue was recasted as issues 3 (a), 3 (b) and 3 (c ). Further one more additional issue was framed. They are as under:

3 (a) Wh