JUDGMENT :

JYOTHI MULIMANI, J.

1. Sri. M.J. Alva., learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Nagaraja Hegde for appellant has appeared in-person and Sri. Vyasa Rao. K.S., learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2, 7 and 8 has appeared through video conferencing. Respondent Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are served but remained unrepresented.

2. This appeal is from the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kundapura confirming the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) & JMFC, Kundapura.

3. Appeal is posted for Admission after issuing notice to respondents.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Courts.

5. Brief facts of the case are as under;-It is averred that one-Sri. Bacha Poojary is the husband of plaintiff No. 2, father of plaintiff No. 1, defendants 1 to 5 and maternal grandfather of plaintiffs 3 to 5. He owned and possessed suit 'A' immovable property on occupancy rights, half share in the schedule 'A' immovable property on occupancy right, half share in the schedule 'B' property on Mulgeni right and the 'C' schedule movables as his individual and self acquired property.

Bacha Poojary died intestate on 10.08.1982 leaving behind plaintiffs 1 and 2 and defendants and the mother of plaintiffs 3 to 5 by name-Smt. Gange, as his only heirs and legal representatives. Hence, it is stated that each of plaintiffs 1 and 2, defendants and Smt. Gange have 1/8th share in the schedule 'A', 'B' and 'C' properties left behind by Bacha Poojary by inheritance. Smt. Gange died intestate leaving behind plaintiffs 3 to 5 as her only heirs and the husband of Smt. Gange had predeceased her. After the death of Bacha Poojary, plaintiffs 1 and 2, defendants, and Smt. Gange were in joint possession of schedule 'A', 'B' and 'C' properties.

It is averred that after the death of Bacha Poojary, his widow and all the other children had executed a power of attorney in favor of defendant No. 5 empowering him to borrow the loans from the Primary Land Development Bank, Udupi and Syndicate Bank, Kuradi, for the purpose of raising loans for the construction of house with Mangalore tiled roofing, cattle shed of Mangalore tiled roofing, sinking a well and installing an irrigation pump set of 5 H.P. etc., and accordingly, defendant No. 5 raised loans and the said constructions, etc., were affected. It is stated that said loans were discharged from the income of schedule 'A' and 'B' lands alone. There are no debts due in respect of the estate of Bacha Poojary.

It is further stated that defendant No. 5 was managing the assets left by his father-Bacha Poojary. Plaintiffs demanded partition and their share in the suit 'A' 'B' and 'C' schedule properties into 8 equal shares by metes and bounds, but in vain. Hence, plaintiffs sought the aid of the Court and filed the suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession and for accounts.

After the service of summons, defendants appeared through their respective counsels. Defendant No. 2 filed written statement supporting plaintiffs claim and the same has been adopted by defendants 1, 3 and 4.

Defendant No. 5 filed separate written statement. He denied the plaint averments. He contended that he has spent huge money for management and improvements of suit schedule properties out of his own personal income. It was also contended that he was working as a Teacher since 1992 and earlier to that, he was doing his own business. He has discharged the loans to the tune of more than Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand only) and the income from suit schedule properties was not at all sufficient for discharging said loans. He specifically contended that he made use of his personal income to discharge the loans. It was also stated that his father never owned any movables as detailed in the plaint and the net income derived from the suit properties is also not correct.

It has been further contended that suit 'A' schedule properties are not partible fully. The d