K.L. Manjunath, J.

1. By consent of both the counsel for the parties, the appeals are heard together.

2. RFA No. 4150/2012 is filed by the plaintiffs and RFA No. 4025/2013 is filed by defendants 1 to 9 in O.S. No. 45/2010 before the Senior Civil Judge, Haveri.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their status before the Court below.

4. Plaintiffs 1 to 4 are the married daughters of one Gurushantayya and Gurushantavva. Gurushantayya died intestate on 04/01/1974. Defendant No. 1 is the 3rd son of Gurushantayya and Gurushantavva. Defendant No. 5 is the widow of second son of Gurushantayya by name Chidanandayya and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are the children born to Chidanandayya and Ratnavva. Defendant No. 6 is the widow of one Chandrashekarayya and defendants 7 to 9 are the children born to Chandrashekarayya and Girijamma.

5. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession claiming 1/7th share each in the suit schedule properties. According to them, deceased Chandrashekarayya, Chidanandayya, defendant Channaveerayya and plaintiffs are the children born to Gurushantayya and Gurushantavva and after the death of their parents, plaintiffs along with defendants 1 to 9 are entitled to claim equal share and that each of the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are described as 3 landed properties bearing R.S. No. 2/3A, 2/3B and 2/3C situate at Ijarilakamapur village, Haveri taluk. Schedule "B" property is an ancestral family dwelling house.

6. The defendants contested the suit. They admitted the relationship between the plaintiffs and them. According to them, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim any share in the suit schedule properties since plaint "A" schedule properties are agricultural lands and their father was a tenant of those lands and after the death of their father Gurushantayya, Form No. 7 under Section 48-A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act came to be filed and the same has been granted in favour of the sons of late Gurushantayya and that the plaintiffs being the daughters are not entitled to claim any share in the tenanted lands and they also cannot claim any share in the family dwelling house. Therefore, they requested the Court do dismiss the suit.

7. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Court below:

"1. Whether plaintiffs prove that, the suit schedule 'A' properties were granted in favour of joint family by the land tribunal, Haveri?

2. Whether plaintiffs prove that, themselves and defendants are joint owner and joint possessor of suit schedule properties?

3. Whether defendants proves that, the description of suit schedule XB' properties is incorrect?

4. Whether defendants proves that, this court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit?

5. Whether defendants proves that, the plaintiffs are not entitle the relief of partition as per provision of Hindu Succession Act-2005?

6. Whether plaintiffs are entitled the relief of partition and separate possession?

7. Whether plaintiffs are entitled 1/7th share in suit schedule properties?

8. What order or decree?"

8. In order to prove their respective contentions, first plaintiff got examined herself as PW-1 and she relied upon Exs. P1 to P-12. First defendant got examined himself as DW-1 and he relied upon Exs. D-1 to D-10.

9. The trial Court after considering the entire evidence let in by the parties, held issue Nos. 1, 2 and 5 in the affirmative, issue Nos. 3 and 4 in the negative and issue Nos. 6 and 7 partly in the affirmative and ultimately the suit came to be decreed holding that the plaintiffs put together are entitled to 1/7th share in schedule "A" properties and dismissed the suit in respect of plaint "B" schedule properties. Challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment in granting 1/7th share in plaint "A" schedule properties to the plaintiffs put together, the defendants have filed RFA No. 4025/2013. Similarly,