JUDGMENT :

N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, J.

1. Defendants 4 and 5, who are the purchasers have preferred this second appeal.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 herein (Byanna, Sathish and Naveen) filed the suit seeking for partition.

3. They stated that Byrappa, the propositus, had two sons namely Bachappa (defendant No. 1) and Byanna (plaintiff No. 1).

4. It was stated that Bachappa, the first son, had a daughter and a son namely Dyavamma (defendant No. 2) and Byrareddy (defendant No. 3).

5. It was stated that Byanna, the second son, had two children namely Satish (plaintiff No. 2) and Naveen (plaintiff No. 3).

6. It was their case that they constituted a Hindu undivided family and they had divided their ancestral and joint family properties equally through an unregistered Memorandum of Partition dated 26.11.1982.

7. It was stated that the suit property was also an ancestral and joint family property that had been acquired by Byrappa but the same had not been included in the partition and had continued to be joint. They stated that despite a demand for effecting partition, there was no positive response from the defendant.

8. They stated that they had learnt that the name of defendants 4 and 5 had been entered in