1. These appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment, as all the appeals arise out of the same judgment.

2. The parties are referred to by their rank before the trial court for the sake of convenience.

3. The first respondent in the appeal in RFA 534/2003 was the plaintiff before the trial court. The suit was one for partition and separate possession of the one-third share claimed by the plaintiff , in the suit schedule properties. The trial court decreed the suit and has granted a two-sixth share – the defendants have filed the above appeals.

The following is the genealogical tree of the family:-

“CHART”

4. The appeal in RFA 534/2003 is filed by the defendant nos.1 and 2. Defendant no.1, Swamy, is the grandson of Hutchegowda and the son of Chandre gowda. Defendant no. 2, Puttamma, is the widow of Chandre gowda.

5. The appeal in RFA 394/2003 is filed by defendant no. 3, Parvathamma, the daughter of late Huchegowda.

6. The appeal in RFA 669/2003 is filed by defendant no. 4, L. Prakash, who is the purchaser of land bearing Survey no. 447/2, measuring 61 acres, one of the items of the suit schedule properties.

The case of the plaintiff was that, Golangana Dasappa had a son, Hutchegowda, who had two wives, namely, Shivamma and Puttaboramma. The plaintiff, Thimmamma, was the only daughter of Shivamma. Puttaboramma, the second wife of Hutchegowda had two children, Chandregowda & Parvathamma. Defendants 1 and 2, Swamy and Puttamma are the son and widow, respectively, of deceased Chandregowda, who had pre-deceased his father, Hutchegowda. Parvathamma is defendant no. 3. The plaintiff claimed that all the suit properties are the ancestral properties of Hutchegowda. After his death, the plaintiff claimed that she was entitled to one-third share in the suit properties. It was contended that the third defendant had sold some of the properties without the consent of the plaintiff or the other members of the family.

The first defendant admitted the relationship of the parties and supported the case of the plaintiff. It was also contended by the said defendant that apart from the suit schedule properties, deceased Hutchegowda had held one more item of land measuring 6 acres and sought that the same be directed to be included in the suit schedule. It was however, denied that the plaintiff was in enjoyment of the suit properties, jointly, with the first defendant. It was claimed that while Hutchegowda had a half share in the suit properties, Chandregowda was entitled to the remaining extent. After the death of Hutchegowda, the plaintiff-Thimmamma, defendants 1, 2 and 3 were entitled to an equal share in respect of the properties fallen to the share of Hutchegowda. On that basis the first defendant claimed partition and separate possession of his two-third share in the suit properties. As also the item of land not included in the plaint.

Defendant no. 2 contended that she had filed a suit in OS No.44/1988, for partition and separate possession of a three-fourth share in the ancestral properties, as the next friend of her son, the first defendant. This was warranted as the third 13 defendant was laying claim to the entire suit properties on the basis of a will said to have been executed by Huchegowda, in favour of defendant no.3, dated 22-12-1986, bequeathing all the properties to her. That suit had however, ended in a compromise, with the third defendant giving up her claim under the will. But, it is contended that, the third defendant had even then managed to wrangle a major share of the suit properties in terms of the said compromise. It is asserted that this was possible as the third defendant carried much influence with Hutchegowda during his life time and after his death, her husband exerted authority over the family and appropriated the income from the properties and alienated several properties, even though there was no legal necessity for such alienation. It was hence contended that any such alienations did not bind