MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.—This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs against the judgment and decree dated 4th July 2007f passed in O.S. No. 6161/2002 by the learned XVII City Civil Judge, (CCH. No. 32), Bangalore City.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective ranks before the trial Court.

2. The suit was filed by the appellants herein (plaintiffs) for partition and separate possession of six items of the properties, more fully described in the schedule of the plaint, The family genealogy is found in paragraphs of the plaint. The same makes it clear that Kariyappa was the propositus, He died leaving behind Muddanna (1st defendant) and another son (he is not a party to the suit), Muddanna had two wives viz., Lakshmamma (died) and Puttathayamma (3rd plaintiff). Defendants 2, 3 and 4 are born to Muddanna through Lakshmamma, whereas, plaintiffs and defendants 5 and 6 are born to Muddanna through Puttathayamma, According to the plaintiffs, all the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties. Therefore, they have got share in the properties. Since they are denied share in the properties in question, the suit came to be filed by them for partition and separate possession.

3. According to the plaintiffs, some of ancestral properties were sold by 1st defendant and out of such sale proceeds, all the suit properties are purchased, including the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 122 of Rarnohaili village, Kengeri Hobfi, Bangalore South Taluk, Item No. 5 of the schedule consists of Gold and Cash in bank. The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiffs is that all the suit schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties of the parties and, therefore, they have got share in the properties.

4. Defendant No. l alone has filed the written statement denying the case of the plaintiffs, According to defendant No. l, all the suit schedule properties, except item No. 6, were the self acquired properties of Muddanna; Muddanna had got only one acre of land which was sold by him in the year 1964 and at that point of time, the plaintiffs were not even born; due to his hard work as a coolie, he accumulated wealth and out of such self earnings, Muddanna purchased the suit schedule properties, i.e., item Nos. 1 to 4. He further submits that item No. 6 property is a residential site purchased by defendant No. 2 on 12.9.1980 and, therefore, item No. 6 is the self acquired property of defendant No. 2; Deceased Muddanna executed two Wills on 28.6.2002 and on 9.7.2002 bequeathing the agricultural land bearing Survey No. 122 (Item No. 4) in favour of all the parties to the suit, including the plaintiffs; since item Nos. 1 to 4 are self acquired properties of defendant No. l, the plaintiffs cannot as of right get any share over the properties in question, Thus, he prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Defendants 2 and 4 have filed additional written statement contending, that item No. 6 of the suit schedule property was the self acquired property of defendant No. 2 and the said property was purchased on 12.9.1980 out of his self earnings and, therefore, the other members of the family have no share in the said property.

6. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they and the defendants constitute joint Hindu undivided family?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the parties to the suit?

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled to 1/8th share in the suit schedule properties and separate possession of the same by metes and bounds?

4. Whether the 1st defendant proves that the suit schedule properties are his self acquired properties?

5. To what reliefs are the parties entitled to?

6. To what order or decree?”

The plaintiffs, in support of their case have examined two witnesses and got marked 14 documents. Four witnesses ‘we