D.R.Vithal Rao, J.

1. This Regular First Appeal by the Appellant-Plaintiffs is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 12-4-1976 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Kolar, in O.S.No. 18/1966 dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their one-half share in the joint family properties including those properties comprised in Schedules-A and B annexed to the plaint. In this Judgment, the parties herein will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants respectively. 1.1. On the date the Karnataka Act 13 of 1989 came into force, this Appeal was heard and reserved for Judgment. A memo dated 12-3-1990 was filed by the respondents stating that in the light of the provisions contained in Section 4 of Karnataka Act No. 13 of 1989, the appeal has stood transferred to the District Court. On the memo, both the sides were heard. Both the sides agreed that as the appeal has been heard earlier to coming into force of Karnataka Act 13 of 1989 and as it is a very old matter, though the appeal has statutorily stood transferred to the District Court, it may be withdrawn and be decided by this Court. Accordingly, we passed an order on 14-3-1990 treating this appeal as statutorily transferred to the District Court, Kolar and withdrew it in exercise of our power under Section 24(1)(b) of the C.P. Code, in the interest of justice and to avoid further delay. Both the sides also further submitted that they had no further arguments to advance. Hence we proceed to decide this appeal.

2.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the father of plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 - the late H.N. Rudrappa was the alder brother of defendant No. 1. Plaintiff No. 3 is the mother of the plaintiffs Nos. 1 and 2 and the widow of the late H.N. Rudrappa. Defendants 2 and 3 are the sons of defendant No. 1. The late H.N. Rudrappa and defendant No. 1 were the sons of Hundi Nagappa who passed away long back.

2.2. The further case of the plaintiffs is that they and the defendants constituted a joint family even during the life time of their father late H.N. Rudrappa and even after his death the family continued to be joint; that defendant No. 1 was the Manager of the family; that the joint family was engaged both in agriculture and Nut Business; that moveable and immoveable properties, as described in Schedules-A and 3 are the joint family properties and are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the defendants.

2.3. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 who is the Manager of the family has been controlling and managing all the joint family properties as described in Schedules-A and B; that he has been carrying on the joint family business in partnership with one G.K. Basavarajappa under the name and style "Messrs. H.N, Siddananjappa and G.K. Basavarajappa, Nut Merchants and Commission Agents, Bangarpet"; that the plaintiffs are entitled to half share in the joint family properties described in Schedules-A and B to the plaint.

2.4. The plaintiffs have further averred that defendant No. 1 has been attempting to conceal the assets of the family and is ill-treating them and as such they do not deem it proper to continue as members of a joint family with the defendants any further. The plaintiffs, on the basis of these averments, have sought partition of the properties referred to in Schedules-A and B to the plaint and separate possession of their half share.

3.1. Defendant No. 1 has filed his separate written statement. It is the case of defendant-1 that the plaintiffs and defendants did not constitute as the members of a joint family; that he was not the Manager of the joint family after the death of his brother Rudrappa; that his brother Rudrappa also was not a member of a joint family; that the alleged joint family was neither engaged in agriculture nor nut business nor did it possess any properties described in Schedules 'A' and 'B'; that the partnership business of Messrs. H.N. Siddananjappa and G.