JUDGMENT :

RAVI V. HOSMANI, J.

1. Challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2014 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag, in R.A. Nos. 24/2011 and 25/2011 and the judgment and decree dated 15.09.2011 passed by the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Raibag in O.S. No. 76/2006 these two appeals are filed. The appellant in RSA No. 100007/2015 was the plaintiff in O.S. No. 76/2006 and appellant in R.A. No. 24/2011. The respondent Nos. 1 to 12 herein were defendants 1 to 12 respectively before the trial Court and respondents 1 to 12 respectively before 1st appellate Court.

2. The appellant in RSA No. 100251/2015 was defendant No. 3 before the trial Court and respondent No. 3 in R.A. No. 25/2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as per their respective ranks before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts leading to these appeals are that, Sri. Bhimappa s/o Mallappa Tuppad filed O.S. No. 76/2006 against defendants for relief of partition and separate possession of his ¼ share in suit schedule 'A' properties etc.,

4. In the plaint, he stated that defendants were his brothers and they constituted a Hindu Undivided Joint Family. It was stated that suit properties were their ancestral properties and were in their actual joint possession and enjoyment. It was further stated that though plaintiff and defendants maintained separate hearths, they continued to be part of joint family. After death of Mallappa, names of plaintiffs and defendants were jointly entered in record of rights of suit schedule 'A' properties. It was further stated that was no partition of joint family properties until filing of suit and as there were difference of opinion, plaintiff requested defendants for partition of joint family properties, which was refused. Hence, he filed the suit.

5. It was also asserted that land bearing R.S. No. 46/1+2+3A/B measuring 12 acres 17 guntas situated at Palabhavi village (which was Item no. 3 in Suit Schedule 'A' properties and hereinafter referred to as 'Item no. 3' for short) was inherited by Sri. Siddagiri Mallappa Tuppad from his grandfather's younger brother, which was also joint family property. However, defendant No. 1 was illegally claiming it to be gifted to him alone by Siddagiri Mallappa, under alleged created gift deed dated 09.07.1956. It was alternatively stated that even if said gift deed were to be held valid, it's donor intended it to be for entire joint family of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and was nominally gifted in the name of defendant no. 1 as he was eldest male member and Karta of joint family. This fact is evidenced by the fact that during 1982, defendant No. 1 willingly got names of his brothers entered along with him in revenue records. Same is reflected in M.E. No. 2151. As defendant No. 1 had unequivocally merged this property with common hotchpotch of joint family, defendant No. 1 was estopped from claiming it as his exclusive property.

6. On service of suit summons, defendants No. 2, 4 to 12 remained absent and were placed ex parte. Defendant No. 1 entered appearance and contested the suit by filling written statement. In his written statement, defendant No. 1 admitted relationship between parties. It was also admitted that suit properties were ancestral. But defendant No. 1 specifically denied that suit property was ancestral joint family property of plaintiff and defendants. It was specifically asserted that it was his self-acquired property as Sri. Siddagiri Mallappa Tuppad, it's earlier owner had gifted it to him exclusively under registered gift deed dated 09.07.1956. It was also contended that propositus Mallappa Tuppad had got two sons and four daughters who were not impleaded as parties to the suit and therefore, suit for partition without impleading all members of joint family was bad for non-joinder. It was further contended that agricultural lands bearing R.S. No. 69/1B and 155/2B situated at Siraguppi village, Jamakhandi taluk and house proper