These appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment as the appeals arise out of the same suit.

2. The appeal in RFA 6001/2012 is filed by the plaintiffs. The facts as asserted by the plaintiffs was that the suit properties were their joint family properties. It was claimed that land bearing survey no.794/1+2+3 of Sarwad village , described at Item no.4 of the suit Schedule-A, was ancestral property and the remaining items of land were purchased overtime in the name of the father of the fourth defendant and the father of the plaintiffs, Mahalingappa , who was no more.

The genealogical tree of the family is as under :

			GENEALOGY
			Malkappa (dead) 1942
			Erawwa (dead)
Mahalingappa   Shivappa (died on 06.02.2007)							(Appt. No.3) died on 23.02.2012 (D-5)
Wife Smt.Annapurna    (Died on 29.09.2007) (D-1)							Wife is brought on record as LR by order dtd.11.04.2012
Shivagangawwa (R-4) (D-6)	Somashekar (R-3) (D-2)			Srikant (Appt-1) (D-3)		Chandrakant (Appt-2) (D-4)			Danamma (R-7) (D-9)
Gangadhar (R-1) (Plaintiff No.1)		Danappa (R-2) (Plaintiff No.2)			Gurubai (R-5) (D-7)			Sumitra (R-6) (D-8)

      = Respondent No.8/defendant No.11 – stranger to the family impleaded himself as defendant No.11.

The first plaintiff is said to be living with his wife at Bijapur since a few years prior to the suit. The second plaintiff was said to be employed in a workshop at Bangalore and was said to be living there with his wife and children.

The first plaintiff was said to have borrowed loans for his family necessities and was said to be in dire financial straits. He was said to be in requirement of more funds to educate his children and other essential purposes.

The second plaintiff was also said to be in need of funds to expand his business. The plaintiffs are thus said to have sought for partition of the suit properties. Defendants 2 to 5 are said to have denied any such right to seek partition, on the footing that it was their individual property, apparently taking advantage of the fact that the several items of lands stood in the name of one or the other defendant.

It was claimed that one item of land, namely, land bearing survey no.652/2 of Mahalbagayat was shown to be standing in the name of defendant no.10. It was alleged that her name had been fraudulently entered in the mutation register. And that she was made a party to the suit by way of abundant caution.

It was stated that defendants no.6 to 9 were the married sisters of the plaintiffs and they had relinquished their share in the property in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 4.

It transpires that defendant no.1 died during the pendency of the suit. Defendant no.2 had not chosen to file any written statement. Defendant no.4 and Defendant no.6 are said to have filed separate written statements and counter claims. Defendants 3 and 5 are said to have adopted the written statement of defendant no.4. Defendants 7 to 9 are said to have adopted the written statement of defendant no. 6.

In the written statements, which were said to be almost identical, the claim of the plaintiffs was said to have been admitted. Defendant no. 4 had in his counter claim staked claim to a 1/12th share in the suit properties. Defendant no.6 had staked a claim to 1/20th share in the suit properties.

Defendant no.10 is said to have filed a detailed written statement. However, the plaintiffs had filed an application seeking her deletion from the array of parties, which had been allowed and she was accordingly deleted as a party to the suit.

Defendant no.11, a third party, had sought to implead himself and the said application had been allowed after contest. It was defendant no. 11 who has contested the suit. It was alleged by him that the suit wa