1. This regular first appeal is filed by the first defendant in O S No.7536/2011 against the judgment and decree dated 28.7.2015 passed by the XV Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, (CCH-3), Bangalore, decreeing the suit for declaration that joint development agreement dated 1.9.2010 executed by defendants No.1, 5, 6 & 7 in respect of plaint schedule property is not binding on the share of plaintiffs and for partition and separate possession.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their ranking in the court below.

3. The facts to be stated in brief are as follows: The original propositus is one Sri Venkataswamy Reddy @ Abbaiah Reddy, who died intestate. He had four sons and three daughters. Out of the four sons Sri N A Venkataswamy Reddy and Sri Munireddy are no more. The plaintiff No.1 was the legally wedded wife of Sri N A Venkataswamy Reddy and plaintiffs No.2 & 3 are his sons. Plaintiff No.4 and plaintiff No.5 are wife and daughter respectively of deceased Sri Munireddy. The defendant Nos.5 & 6 are the sons of defendant No.1. Thus plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the members of Hindu Joint family owning and possessing plaint schedule property jointly. Sri Venkataswamy Reddy died in the year 1981. Originally Sri Venkataswamy Reddy was in possession of plaint schedule property and he was the priest of Basavanna Temple located in plaint schedule property. After coming into force of Inam Abolition Act, suit land was granted in favour of defendant No.1, since defendant No.1 was the eldest son and Kartha of the joint family. The defendant No.1 was looking after welfare of the joint family members. Suit land was re-granted in his favour with the consent of other members of joint family. Except suit land, there were other properties which are already divided between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 as per unregistered family partition deed dated 11.12.1992. But suit land was kept joint for the purpose of joint cultivation by all members of the family.

4. On 7.12.2007 defendant No.1 got converted said land into non agricultural use for formation of residential layout as per the order passed by revenue authorities, but the plaintiffs did not know this fact. Thereafter, defendant No.1 started putting up construction over the suit land, for which plaintiffs made enquiry, but defendant No.1 went on giving evasive answers. Finally, plaintiffs demanded their legitimate share by effecting actual partition and separate possession of their share in the suit property, for which defendant No.1 refused.

5. The defendant No.1 along with his sons executed Joint Development Agreement Deed in favour of defendant No.7. Neither defendants No.1, 5 and 6 nor defendant No.7 have any absolute right over the suit land to execute such agreement deed. Therefore, joint development agreement deed is not binding on the share of plaintiffs. Other defendants No.2, 3 and 4 are sisters of defendant No.1 and this plaintiff No.4 and already they have got married. Thus they have no any right, title and interest over the suit land.

6. The defendant No.1 filed written statement which is adopted by defendant Nos.5 & 6. The defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 have not presented their written statement. The defendant No.7 also presented its written statement as well as additional written statement.

7. It is contended by the first defendant that in view of judgment and decree in O.S. No.38/1967 already there is severance of status among the members of the family. It is denied that suit land is joint family property. Suit land is exclusively granted to defendant No.1 by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition. Name of defendant No.1 appear continuously as its kathedar and owner. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, since Chinna Ammaiah and Varalakshmi and even M/s. Srinidhi Consultants are not made as a party to the suit. Suit land was bearing Sy.No.3 which later on renumbered as Sy.No.150 and same was granted in