N. Kumar, J : This appeal is preferred by defendants-1, 3 and 4 against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, which has decreed the suit of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession granting 1/7th share to the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties.

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

3. One Thammaiah is the propositus. His wife is Uchithamma. They had five sons and two daughters. Plaintiffs are the widow and two minor daughters of Suryakumar, one of the sons of Thammaiah, who died on 02.09.1987. The first defendant is his eldest son of Thammaiah. Kempanna is his second son who died during the pendency of the proceedings and therefore his wife and children are brought on record as defendants-2(a), (b) and (c). Third son of Thammaiah is the 3rd defendant by name Venkatesh and 4th son is Chandrashekaraiah, who is the 4th defendant. Defendants-6 and 7 are two daughters of Thammaiah by name Saraswathi Rajashekar and Lakshmi. The 5th defendant is the purchaser.

4. The subject matter of the suit is agricultural lands situated at Thammanna Doddi, Kenchanakuppe Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, which are more particularly described under items-1, 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule. Item No.4 of the plaint schedule is property bearing No.89, Ramakrishna Mutt Road, Ulsoor, which is a family house. Item No.5 is the property bearing No.1, 6th street, Palani Mudaliar Cross, Ulsoor. Item No.6 is a movable property.

5. The case of the plaintiffs is, first plaintiff was married to Surya Kumar on 26th April 1985 at Bangalore. Plaintiffs-2 and 3 are their children. Surya Kumar is the son of Thammaiah, who was the Kartha of the Joint Hindu Undivided Family consisting of himself and his children, including Surya Kumar. Surya Kumar was the youngest son of Thammiah. He died intestate on 02.09.1987, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his only legal heirs. Thammaiah inherited several ancestral properties. Item Nos. 1 and 2 of the schedule properties are ancestral properties inherited by Thammaiah. In so far as Item No.3 is concerned, it was a tenanted land cultivated by the joint family. Thammaiah filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy rights and it was granted by order dated 20.06.1992. Therefore it is a joint family property. Thammaiah owned item No.4 of the schedule property. Item No.5 of the property was acquired and developed by joint family fund and therefore it is also a joint family property. First plaintiff's husband Surya Kumar and defendants-1 to 4 were enjoying all the properties as joint family properties.

6. Defendants-1 to 4 stealthily and behind the back of the plaintiffs appear to have partitioned the property bearing No.29, Ramakrishna Mutt Road, Ulsoor, Item No.4 of the schedule property, which was purchased out of the joint family funds and developed it from joint family funds and it was yielding an income of Rs.70,000-00 as rent from 30 tenants in its occupation. However, defendants-1 to 4 are paying Rs.4,000-00 per month to plaintiffs since last one year. Defendants 1 to 4 stealthily partitioned the schedule properties excluding the plaintiffs. On coming to know of the same they demanded partition. When their request was not acceded to, they were constrained to file the suit for partition. They also pleaded the properties which were granted by the Land Tribunal in the name of Thammaiah were unlawfully sold to the 5th defendant by defendants 1 to 4 and Thammaiah. Therefore, the said sale is not binding on the plaintiffs. The sale is also in contravention of the mandatory provisions of the Land Reforms Act as the sale was effected within the period of non-alienation. Therefore, the plaintiffs sought for their 1/5th share in all the plaint schedule properties.

7. Defendants 1 to 3 filed written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiffs. The relationship between the parties was admitted. After denying all the allegations in the plaint