1. The unsuccessful LRs. of the deceased first defendant are before this Court against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2016 made in R.A.No.13/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sedam dismissing the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2014 made in O.S.No.99/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge, Sedam decreeing the suit of the plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in Sy.No.42/1 measuring 4 acres 3 guntas situated at Beeranalli village directing the defendants to carve out half share of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property within two months from the date of the order.

Brief facts of the case:

2. The first respondent – Siddamma who was the plaintiff before the Trial Court filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property morefully described in the schedule to the plaint against the original defendants contending that the suit schedule property measuring 4 acres 3 guntas in Sy.No.42/1 situated at Beeranalli village, Sedam taluk, Kalaburagi district belongs to the plaintiff and the first defendant who are the members of the Hindu undivided joint family and it is an ancestral joint family property. The father of the plaintiff and the first defendant are real brothers. The grandfather of the plaintiff by name Peerappa was the owner of the suit land. The plaintiff and the first defendant are having equal right over the suit property. The father of the plaintiff died when the plaintiff was child and her mother Mahadevi got married some other person of Hebbal village. The first defendant being the Karta of the family and his name was mutated in the suit property and they are enjoying the suit property as joint owners. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 joined the hands not to give the share of the plaintiff. The first defendant taking undue advantage of his name appearing in the suit property trying to alienate the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff demanded her share and the first defendant postponed by one or other reason and finally refused to give her share. Therefore, she filed suit as prayed for.

3. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant died and his LRs. were brought on record. The first defendant in his written statement admitted the description of the suit property and boundaries and contended that the Peerappa S/o Saboo was the owner of the suit land and he was the father of the first defendant and denied that said Peerappa was the grandfather of the plaintiff. It is contended that there was no relationship between the plaintiff and first defendant and the plaintiff has no way concerned to the family of the first defendant. The family pedigree shown in the plaint was incorrect and baseless and the first defendant was only the legal heir of the deceased Peerappa and denied that the first defendant living together at any time. The plaintiff is unknown lady and question of joint family does not arise. The first defendant was the legal heir of the deceased Peerappa and he got entered his name in the entire suit land about 35 years back. The father of the first defendant died long back and after his death, the name of the first defendant was mutated. The first defendant was residing in Beeranalli village and the plaintiff was residing at Rudranoor in Chincholli taluk and her mother was residing at Hebbal village in Chittapur taluk. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit with compensatory costs.

4. The second defendant also filed the written statement contending that he made enquiry in the village and entered into agreement with the first defendant. The first defendant with the consent of his family members entered into agreement of sale deed dated 25.06.2008 agreeing to sell the suit property for Rs.5,50,000/- per acre and he paid advance consideration amount of Rs.13,95,000/-. There was public hearing to establishment of industries in acquiring lands and the same was published in the newspaper for acquisi