The principle of notional partition was applied to ascertain the deceased's share in the coparcenary property and the entitlement of the heirs, while the application of Section 19 of the Hindu Succession Act was crucial in determining the status of subsequent property acquisitions.

Manjula Chellur, J.—This Regular First Appeal is filed assailing the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 59 of 1997 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chikkamagalur in decreeing the suit.

2. The facts that led to the litigation in brief are as under:

The first Respondent herein was the Plaintiff, the Appellant and the second Respondent herein were the Defendants before the lower Court. The parties to the litigation are the children of late Mr. Padmakshegowda and Smt. Indiramma. It is not in dispute that Padmakshegowda died in 1966 and his wife died in 1985. Padmakshegowda left behind the parties to the suit as legal heirs and also joint family properties (ancestral) described in the schedule at item Nos. 1 to 3, 9(a) to 9(c) and 11. During the life time of Padmakshegowda, it was a joint family. Even after his death the properties remained in joint possession of all the contesting legal heirs. Out of the income of these properties and also by mortgaging these properties, item Nos. 4 to 8 and 10, 13 and 14 were acquired by the Defendants 1 and 2. Therefore, the Plaintiff claimed that all the immovable properties are the joint family properties and she is entitled to her share therein. That apart according o her, gold ornaments described at item No. 12 of the schedule also belong to joint family. Without heeding to the demand of the Plaintiff to give her share, Defendants 1 and 2 unilaterally prepared an agreement determining the share of the Plaintiff as Rs. 4,00,000/- only which according to her was not binding as she was not a party to the same. Hence she was constrained to file the suit for partition and separate possession of her 1/9th share in suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. The Defendants 1 and 2-the brothers of the Plaintiff no doubt admit that items 1, 2, 9 and 11 as ancestral properties, but so far as other properties are concerned, they have different versions.

3. According to first Defendant-Appellant, the joint family did never possess or own any gold ornaments. If at all any gold ornaments are there, it belongs to his wife as they are given to her by her parents at the time of marriage. It is also his specific case that Sy. Nos. 180/2, 9(a) to 9(c) do not belong to the joint family and those are neither in possession of him nor in the possession of his brother-second Defendant. The schedule item No. 13 Maruti Omni Car belongs to Defendant No. 2 and schedule item No. 14 Maruti Zen car is the absolute property of his wife as she has acquired the same from her father. It is his further case that after the death of Padmakshegowda, the marriage of the Plaintiff was performed by spending about Rs. 1,00,000/- including the jewels given to her. In a panchayat during 1996 at the desire of the parties, the partition was done wherein the Plaintiff agreed to take a cash of Rs. 4,00,000/- in lieu of her share. The panchayatdars had also determined the shares of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2-the 2 brothers. Out of Rs. 4,00,000/-, the Plaintiff has already received Rs. 15,000/- and the first Defendant was ready to pay the balance in instalments as agreed. On account of these facts, the suit of the Plaintiff for partition is not maintainable and has sought for dismissal of the same.

4. According to the second Defendant item No. 12-the gold ornaments are in the custody of Defendant No. 1 which are not yet partitioned due to non co-operation of the Plaintiff during the panchayat. Sy. Nos. 14 and 30/1 of Channagondanahalli, Sy. No. 181/2 of Jakkanahalli and Dolphin make car bearing No. MYZ 8917 are also the joint family properties which are not included in the plaint schedule. He further contends that he has no objection for giving 1/9th share to Plaintiff in the properties available for partition.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that plaint schedule items 1 to 11 immovable properties are the joint family properties of parties to the s