B. Manohar , J.—Appellants are the defendants 1 to 5, 6 and 7 in O.S. No. 123/1999, being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 24-9-2005 passed by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and JMFC at Srirangapatnam, wherein the suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed, the appellants have filed these appeals. Since the common question of law and facts are involved in these appeals and the common order passed in O.S. No. 123/1999 has been challenged in these appeals, both the appeals are clubbed together and disposed by this common order.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit 'A' schedule properties and also seeking for declaration declaring that he is the owner of 'B' schedule property and for recovery of possession with mesne profits and costs.

3. In the plaint, it is contended that one Ankegowda was the propositus of the family and he had a son by name Ankegowda and a daughter Ankamma. The son Ankegowda had a son by name Gurumurthy Gowda through his first wife. After the death of first wife, Ankegowda married Chikkathayamma and got a son by name Ankegowda, who is the plaintiff in the suit. The said Ankegowda died when the plaintiff was one year old. After the death of Ankegowda, the mother of the plaintiff i.e. Chikkathayamma got married to one Ningegowda of B. Hosur village and residing with him. The plaintiff has been brought up and reared by his Paternal Aunt Ankamma. She was the absolute owner of 'B' schedule property and she bequeathed the said property in favour of the plaintiff as per the registered Will dated 16-1-1975 and she died on 1-5-1983. By virtue of the said Will, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the 'B' schedule property after the death of Ankamma.

4. The first defendant is the wife of late Gurumurthy Gowda who died on 17-5-1996. The defendants 2 to 4 are the children of the first defendant. The family of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 owned suit 'A' schedule properties as then joint family properties. After the death of Ankegowda the plaintiff and his late brother Gurumurthy Gowda were cultivating a portion of the 'A' schedule properties separately as joint owners, though there is no partition of the joint family properties by metes and bounds. However without knowledge of the plaintiff his brother late Gurumurthy Gowda alienated item No. 2(a) of the schedule 'A' properties in favour of the 7th defendant as per the registered sale deed dated 8-3-1970 and put the 7th defendant in possession of the properties. The defendants 1 to 3 without having any right, title to alienate the said 'B' schedule property as per the registered sale deed dated 22-11-1993 sold the said property in favour of the 6th defendant for a sum of Rs. 6,000/- behind the back of the plaintiff Since, defendants 1 to 3 have no right to alienate the property, the 6th defendant does not get any title over said the property. Further the joint family properties cannot be alienated by one of the co-owners and the plaintiff is entitled for the share in the said properties. Accordingly he filed the suit with the above prayers.

5. The defendants 1 to 6 were duly served with the notice. The 7th defendant reported to be dead and his legal representatives are brought on record as 7(a) to 7(c). The defendants 1 to 3 and 5 appeared through their counsel. Defendants 4 and 6 remained absent. Legal representatives of the 7th defendant i.e. 7(a) to 7(c) are represented through their counsel. The defendants 1 to 3 and 5 filed joint written statement. The other defendants have not filed written statement. In the written statement of defendants 1 to 3 and 5, they have denied the entire averments in the plaint in to, except the relationship of defendants 1 to 5 with late Gurumurthy Gowda. They denied that the plaintiff is the son of Ankegowda and brother of Gurumurthy Gowda. It is denied that the mother of the plaintiff was the second wife of late Ankegowda and contended that the