This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.284/2000 on the file of the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) at Maddur being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2005 dismissing the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit properties.

2. The parties would be referred to as per their rank in the suit itself for convenience.

3. The brief facts of the case are that one Hanumanthaiah was the propositus. He got two wives namely, Channamma and Naramma. Through the first wife, he got five children and through second wife, two children. Wife and son of Chinnaiah, the third child through first wife as plaintiffs No.1 & 2 and first child through second wife, as plaintiff No.3, they filed the suit O.S. No.284/2000 for partition and separate possession on the ground that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of deceased Hanumanthaiah. After his death, his 2nd wife also died and prior to her 1st died. Later plaintiffs and defendants are legal representatives of deceased Hanumanthaiah and got right over the suit schedule properties. After the death of Hanumanthaiah, husband of first child i.e., Venkataiah, an eldest member started managing the properties, got changed the khata in his name without consent of others. Plaintiff No.2 was doing toddy contract. After the death of husband of defendant No.1, the defendants No.1, 2 and 13 colluded with revenue officials, created some fraudulent documents about suit properties without consent of plaintiffs. The land in Sy.No.45/1A - 26 guntas is standing in the name of defendant No.2. The land in Sy.No.45/1A - 30 guntas and 26 guntas also stand in the name of defendant No.2. Sy.No.45/1C – 25 guntas stands in the name of husband of defendant No.2. Sy.No.45/1A – 26 guntas standing in the name of defendant No.13. The defendants No.1, 2 and 13 have no right to alienate the properties to anybody. The defendant No.1 got changed khata in respect of suit item No.2 in her name and sold to defendant No.2. The suit schedule properties are all ancestral joint family properties. Hence the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 13 are entitled to equal share being coparceners.

4. The defendants entered appearance in the suit and defendants No.1 to 7, 9 and 14 filed written statement denying the plaint averments and inter alia contending, father of Hanumanthegowda was Chaluvalingegowda, who died leaving behind his two sons (1) Hanumanthegowda and (2) Govindegowda. The two brothers got divided the joint family properties. The properties mentioned in suit item Nos.1 to 4 are properties fell to the share of Hanumanthegowda. Item No.5 house property also divided into two parts allotting to each, onehalf share. The five sons of Hanumanthegowda got divided the joint family properties left by Hanumanthegowda in oral partition, thereby all of them got 26 guntas each and one-fifth share in item No.5 house property out of half portion of Hanumanthegowda. Afterwards Govindegowda also died leaving behind his share to his only son, Mariyaiah.

5. It is further contended by the defendants that Chinnappa, husband and father of plaintiffs No.1 & 2 when he was bachelor, on 21.6.1951 sold his entire share both house and land to another brother Puttaiah under registered sale deed. Thereafter plaintiff No.3 also on 7.9.1984 agreed to sell and handed over his entire share both landed and house property in favour of Puttaiah under a registered deed of agreement. Accordingly, Sri Puttaiah is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Sri H. Puttaiah is father of defendants No.3 to 7 and husband of defendant No.2. Thus Chinnappa lost his right by selling the property prior to his marriage and birth of plaintiff No.2. As such plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 have no right over the property of said Chinnappa.

6. Plaintiff No.3 also agreed to sell away his entire share, not retained any property. Thus it is specific case of the defendants that plaintiffs are not entitled to maintain the suit for partition.

7. On the basis of the