1. This appeal is from the Judgment and Decree dated 17.01.2004 in O.S.No.16271/2001 on the file of XXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru. The plaintiff is the appellant and the defendants are the respondents in this appeal. In fact, by judgment dated 19.03.2010, this appeal had been decided by this court; and the said judgment being set aside by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the appeal remanded to this court for decision afresh, we have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Before dealing with evidence on record and the legal issues involved, the pleadings, with respect to position of the parties in the suit, briefly stated, are as follows:

2. D.N. Vasanta Kumar, father of the plaintiff and the defendants 2 to 4 and husband of defendant no.1, during his lifetime owned the suit properties. He got them in a partition that took place on 29.03.1967. Vasanta Kumar died intestate on 31.12.1984. The plaintiff claims 1/5th share in the suit properties.

3. The defendants, in their written statement admit the relationship and the intestate death of Vasanta Kumar on 31.12.1984. But according to them, the suit properties did not belong to Vasanta Kumar absolutely; they have pleaded that the properties belong to Hindu Undivided Family of which Vasanta Kumar was a Karta. The properties belonged to D.K. Nabhirajaiah, the father of Vasanta Kumar and they are the ancestral properties of the joint family. In the partition that was effected on 29.03.1967, Vasanta Kumar received his share in the joint family property and therefore the plaintiff is entitled to 1/5th share in the 1/3rd share of Vasanta Kumar. The plaintiff is not ready to accept the actual share she is entitled to, and that the defendants are ever ready to give her actual share.

4. Based on the pleadings, the trial court struck five issues, of which the relevant issue for discussion here is issue No.2 which is as follows:

“Whether the plaintiff proves that she is entitled to 1/5th share in the schedule properties?”

5. On appreciation of oral evidence of two witnesses, PW-1 and DW-1 and three documents produced by the plaintiff as per Ex.P.1 to P.3, the trial court held that the suit properties devolved on Vasanta Kumar through a partition deed dated 29.03.1967 between Nabhirajaiah and his sons, that the properties were ancestral and that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/20th share.

6. Assailing the findings of the trial court, the learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, Sri. Ajay Govindraj, has mainly raised two points. The first point is that the trial court should not have held that suit properties were ancestral as there was no issue to be answered like that. His second point of argument is that the properties that Vasanta Kumar got to his share under Ex.P.1, the partition deed, were held by him exclusively and absolutely or in other words they were his separate properties. After his death, succession to the properties should be in accordance with Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act. The plaintiff being a Class I heir is entitled to 1/5th equal share. He has garnered support for his arguments by placing reliance on three judgments of the Supreme Court in (1). Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and others Vs. Chander Sen and others [(1986) 3 SCC 567)], (2). Hardeo Rai Vs. Shakuntala Devi and others [(AIR 2008 SC 2489)], (3). Ramesh Verma (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Lajesh Saxena (Dead) by Legal Representatives [(2017) 1 SCC 257)] and a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Shakuntala and others Vs. Basavaraj and others [ILR 2016 Kar 3604].

7. The learned counsel for the respondents, Sri. Giridhar countered the argument of Sri. Ajay Govindaraj by arguing that the trial Court has not committed any error in giving a finding with regard to ancestral nature of the suit property, as while answering issue no.2, the evidence adduced by the witnesses has been considered. Issue No.2 was properly framed by