1. Plaintiff of an original suit bearing O.S.No.39/1990, which was pending on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Sirsi has approached this Court by filing an appeal under Section 96 of CPC. Respondents herein were defendants in the said suit. Parties will be referred as plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 7 as per their ranking in the trial Court.

2. Plaintiff had filed a suit for the reliefs of declaration to the effect that he has become the owner to an extent of Vo. share in the suit schedule properties, on the basis of settlement deed executed by Mangesh Rao in favour of his paternal grand mother Ganga Bai on 09.08.1939 and for consequential relief of partition and separate possession by metes and bonds and also for mesne profits as contemplated under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC.

One person by name Mangesh Rao was the husband of Ganga Bai. They had two sons namely Shankar and Vimalanand. The first son Shankar separated from his father Mangesh Rao, who gave some properties during his lifetime. He went out of the joint family somewhere in 1937 and 1938. He had only one son by name Krishna, the plaintiff, born out of his first wife Kamala. He bad taken a second wife by name Hemalata and there was no cordiality between himself and his father Mangesh Rao because of the second marriage. After Shankar -- first son separated from him, his grand son Krishna continued to live with Mangesh Rao. Vimalanand, the second son continued to live with Mangesh Rao and his mother Ganga Bai. In 1939 Mangesh Rao chose to execute settlement deed in favour of his wife Ganga Bai, with a condition that she was entitled to enjoy the estate during her lifetime and that after her death, the properties would equally devolve upon Krishna, the plaintiff and Vimalanand, second son of Mangesh Rao and Ganga Bai. With these conditions, the suit schedule properties were handed over to Smt. Ganga Bai.

Mangesh Rao, the settlor died in the year 1944; Vimalanand died in the year 1971, First defendant Vasantlatha is the wife of deceased Vimalanand, the second son of Mangesh Rao. Smt. Gangubai, paternal grandmother of the plaintiff and mother in law of the first defendant died during 1983. In view of restriction found in the settlement deed dated 09.08.1939, he plaintiff chose to claim his half share. Since the first defendant did not give half share to him, he was forced to file a suit for the relief of declaration of y2 title and for demarcated by metes and bounds.

First defendant appeared before the trail Court and chose to file a detailed written statement denying all the material averments. The relationship between the parties is admitted. The averment that the settlement was done with a restrictive covenant restraining the interest of Gangubai only to her lifetime has been specifically denied. He has called upon the plaintiff to prove the contents of the plaint strictly.

According to the first defendant, Smt. Gangubai has bequeathed the schedule properties in her favour through a Will dated 22.12.1973 and that she has become the absolute owner of the property so bequeathed in her favour. The said Will is stated to have been executed by Gangubai while she was in a sound and disposing state of mind. It is further averred that she was entitled to bequeath the property as she was the absolute owner.

It is averred that Gangubai sold two items of properties during her lifetime through two separate registered sale deeds dated 23.10.1982 and 06.11.1982. Defendant nos.4 to 16 have been made as parties by the plaintiff in his suit as they are tenants of various tentaments of the building situated in the suit schedule properties. With these pleadings the first defendant had prayed for dismissal of the suit.

Defendant nos.2 and 3 have also filed a detailed written statement jointly on 10.02.1995 and that the pleadings are identical to the plea taken by the first defendant in his written statement.

3. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues have bee