JUDGMENT :

K. S. Mudagal, J.

This plaintiff's second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2017 in R.A.No.58/2015 passed by the VII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant/plaintiff and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2015 passed in O.S.No.376/2008 by the Principle Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore, dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for partition and separate possession of her share in the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction.

3. Respondents were defendants-1 to 3 before the Trial Court. For the purpose of convenience, parties will be referred to hereafter with their ranks before the trial Court.

4. The subject-matter of the suit was agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 109 measuring 2 acres of Cheemasandra Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk.

5. Plaintiff and one Ramaiah and third defendant purchased 3 acres of land in Sy.No.109 under Ex.P. 10 registered sale deed dated 09.09.1993 jointly. They were not blood relatives. Suit schedule property is 2 acres out of the said land. Out of 3 acres, plaintiff and defendants sold 14 guntas to one N. Sadananda and 13 guntas each to one Gundappa and V.R.Anjanappa under sale deeds Exs.P. 1 to P.3 dated 20.01.2006 and 24.01.2006. Thus remaining land out of the said land namely 2 acres was the subject-matter of the suit.

6. Plaintiff contended that sale deeds under Exs.P. 1 to P.3 were jointly executed by her and other co-owners and after such sale she has 1/3rd share in the remaining 2 acres. She further contended that defendants are denying her share and though she is in joint possession, they are disturbing her possession. Thus, she sought for partition and separate possession.

7. Defendants 1 and 2 are the wife and son of D. Ramaiah, who was the co-purchaser with defendant No. 3. As he had died, defendants 1 and 2 were made parties to the suit.

8. Defendants admitted the joint purchase of the land and plaintiff had 1/3rd share out of the said 3 acres. But they contended that plaintiff for her financial needs sold her 1/3rd interest/share in the suit schedule property under Exs.P. 1 to P.3 to different purchasers and received the sale consideration and therefore she does not have any share in the remaining 2 acres. They further contended that before such sale there was a partition between plaintiff, defendant No. 3 and D. Ramaiah under Ex.D.1 and thereafter plaintiff sold her share and received consideration. They further contended that plaintiff to make wrongful gain is setting up the claim. They contended that as the names of defendants were appearing in revenue records, at the instance of the purchasers, they formally joined in execution of Exs.P. 1 to P.3.

9. On the basis of such pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that she and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the joint owners of the suit schedule property?

2. Whether the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 prove that the plaintiff had sold her share of land?

3. Whether the plaintiff further proves that she is entitled for /rd share by way of partition and separate possession in the suit schedule land?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction to restrain the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 from alienating the suit schedule land?

5. To what Decree or Order?"

10. To prove her case, the plaintiff got examined herself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.P. 1 to P. 14. Defendant No. 2 got examined himself as D.W. 1, witnesses D.Ws.2 and 3 and got marked Exs.D.1 to D.9.

11. The Trial Court after hearing the parties dismissed the suit on the following grounds:

(i) Though Exs.P. 1 to P.3 partition deeds cannot be received in evidence, in view of section 49 of the Registration Act, the other evidence on record shows that plaintiff got her share divided and sold her interest/share under Exs.P. 1 t