1. Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in original suit bearing O.S. No. 82 of 2007 which was pending on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Jamkhandi sitting at Mudhol have filed this appeal under Section 100 of CPC challenging the judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 183 of 2009.

2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 10 herein were defendants 1(A) to 1(I) and plaintiff No.2 in the said case. Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 were defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in the said case. Parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their ranking in the trial Court.

3. Plaintiff and defendant No.1 are children of one Hanumant Dhanagar. Suit schedule property described in the schedule appended in the plaint measuring 2 acres 28 guntas is in Mirji village of Mudhol Taluk. It is the ancestral property of the plaintiff and defendant NO.1. Defendant NO.2 is the wife of defendant NO.1 and both of them have sold the entire suit schedule property in favour of defendant Nos. 3 and 4 to an extent of 1 acre and 1 acre 28 guntas through separate sale deeds dated 13.8.2007 respectively. It is this alienation which is called in question by filing a suit for partition and separate possession of 2/6th share. Defendant NO.1 has filed written statement but did not lead any evidence. Defendant NO.4 had filed written statement by contesting the suit.

4. Defendant No.1’s case as put forth in his written statement, is that the alienation has been made for the purpose of family necessity. According to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 suit is time-barred. With these pleadings they had requested the court to dismiss the suit.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings the following issues have been framed:

1. Whether plaintiffs prove that they have share in the suit properties? If so to what extent?

2. Whether defendant No.1 proves that he has sold the suit property to defendant Nos. 3 and 4 for his family necessity?

3. Whether suit is time barred?

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?

5. What decree or order?

6. Shantawwa Shivalingappa Makali is examined as PW.1 and Siddappa Dundappa Langoti is examined as PW.2 and four documents have been got marked on their behalf. Defendant No.3 is examined as D.W.1 and three witnesses have been examined on their behalf. After analysing the evidence and after hearing the arguments, learned Senior Civil Judge has chosen to answer issue Nos.1 and 4 in the affirmative and issue Nos.2 and 3 have been answered in the negative. The suit is decreed granting 1/6th share to the legal representatives of deceased plaintiff No.1 and 1/6th share to plaintiff NO.2. Direction is given to draw a preliminary decree. This considered judgment dated 30.3.2011 had been called in question by filing an appeal under Section 96 of CPC. The said appeal was withdrawn and transferred to the Fast Track Court, Jamakhandi and numbered as R.A.No.183/09. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 30.3.2011 confirming the judgment of the trial Court. It is these concurrent judgments which are called in question on various grounds set out in the appeal memo.

7. From the records, it is evident that there is no serious dispute about the facts that the property in question is the ancestral property of the defendant NO.1. Though defendant No.1 is manager of the joint family, he has sold the entire family property though he has a limited share. When there are major members in the family, kartha is not entitled to alienate the undivided share of the major members. Kartha of joint family is entitled to alienate the undivided share of a minor coparcener if there is legal necessity for the family or pressure estate of joint family. Evidence on record would disclose that DWs. 1 and 2 have admitted that defendant NO.1 is addicted to bad wises like drinking and gambling. Though he has pleaded that entire property is alienated in his favour, he has not stepped into witness box. Defendants / purchasers cannot have better case than the defendants who have virtually ab