JUDGMENT :

This appeal lays challenge to the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2009 in R.A.No.6/2008 passed by Addl. Dist. Judge, Raichur wherein the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.12.2007 passed in O.S.No.46/2001 by the learned Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Raichur.

2. The appellants are defendant Nos.1 to 3 and respondent Nos.1 to 3 are the plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 was defendant No.4 before the trial Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their respective ranks before the trial Court.

3. The brief case of the plaintiffs before the trial Court was that the plaintiffs instituted suit in O.S.No.46/2001 for partition and separate possession. The plaintiffs contention before the trial Court was that the common ancestor Suganna had two sons late Narsingappa and Basanna. Plaintiff No.1 is the widow of said Basanna. She had daughter by name Siddamma and a son by name Mallappa. Plaintiff No.2 is the widow of Mallappa and plaintiff No.3 is the son of Mallappa.

4. The said Narsingappa had children by name Basanna-defendant No.1, Ramalingamma-defendant No.2 and Surochana-defendant No.3. It is contended that the suit properties were standing earlier in the name of Narsingappa and Basanna. On their death, they were mutated in the name of defendant No.1 behind the back of plaintiffs. The plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession of the suit properties. They have got half share in the suit properties. When the dispute arose between the parties, plaintiffs demanded their share, but defendants refused to give share. Hence, plaintiffs filed the suit. The suit properties are agricultural land bearing Sy.No.31 measuring 9 acres 33 guntas and Sy.No.107/1 measuring 8 acres 16 guntas and two house properties bearing Panchayat No.1-46 and 1-47 of Heggasanahalli village, Raichur.

5. The defendant No.1 filed written statement denying the relationship of the plaintiffs. It is contended that the grandfather of defendant No.1-Suganna died long back leaving behind his two sons Narsingappa-father of defendant No.1 and Basanna who died intestate as bachelor. The share of Basanna in the joint family came to be succeeded and inherited by defendant No.1. The family of defendant No.1 was having only inam land i.e. Sy.No.31 measuring 9 acres 33 guntas and Sy.No.107/1 measuring 8 acres 16 guntas is self-acquired property of defendant No.2, and it is purchased out of the funds provided by his mother Kamalamma. So, other members of the family have no right in the property. The land was re-granted in the name of Narsingappa and Basanna by Land Tribunal. After the death of Basanaa who died without marrying and as a bachelor, only defendant No.1 is having right over the properties. Plaintiff No1. has no status of wife. The mother and sisters have also share in the suit properties. The plaintiffs are never in possession of the suit properties.

6. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 adopted written statement filed by defendant No.1 by filing memo.

7. Defendant No.4 who got impleaded subsequently filed separate written statement. She has contended that she is only daughter of Basanna who is the son of Suganna. She denied the contention of plaintiffs that plaintiff No.1 is the wife of Basanna and her mother. She contended that she has got half share in the suit properties. It is further contended by her plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have colluded together to defeat the rights of defendant No.4. With these contentions, she prayed to dismiss the suit and allot her share in the suit properties.

8. On the basis of above pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the plaintiff No.1 is the legally wedded wife of late Basanna and plaintiff No.2 is the legally wife of the Mallappa s/o late Basanna and plaintiff No.3 is the son of plaintiff No.2 and late Mallappa?

2. Whether the plaintiffs p