JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1. This appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for short) has been filed against judgment and decree dated 13.02.2013 passed by the Trial Court, by which the suit for partition and separate possession filed by plaintiff/respondents has been decreed.

2. The dispute in this appeal pertains to half share of the plaintiffs in respect of land measuring 2 acres and 15 guntas bearing Sy. No. 99/2 situated at Karakanhalli Village, Yelwala Hobli, Mysore Taluk. Facts leading to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that one Byregowda was the owner of land bearing Sy. Nos. 99/2 and 91/3 measuring 2 acres 15 guntas and 1 acre 21 guntas situated at Karakanhalli Village, Yelwala Hobli, Mysore Taluk. Admittedly, aforesaid Byregowda expired sometime in the year 1986, intestate leaving behind the plaintiffs viz., the daughters and husbands of original defendants 1 and 2 as their legal representatives. The husband of defendant No. 1 expired sometime in the year, 1991 leaving behind defendant Nos. 1 and 5 to 7 as his legal heirs. Similarly, husband of defendant No. 2 died sometime in the year, 1986 leaving behind defendant No. 2 and defendants 8 and 9 as legal heirs. The family tree is reproduced below to explain the relationship of parties to the suit:

The suit properties are joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants.

3. The plaintiffs who are daughters of late Byregowda filed a suit seeking the relief of declaration, partition and separate possession inter alia on the ground that suit lands are joint family properties and the plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession of the same. It was pleaded that defendants used to look after the properties, however, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 after the death of their husbands with a malafide intention sometime in the year 1997-1998 with a view to deprive the plaintiffs of their right and share in the joint family properties, got their names mutated in the revenue records without the knowledge of the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the plaintiffs learnt that defendants 1 and 2 entered into an agreement for sale in respect of the suit lands. The plaintiffs made an enquiry and demanded their share in the suit lands from the defendants. At that time, the plaintiffs were informed that defendants have effected partition by paalu parikath (partition by mutual consent before members of panchayat). It was pleaded that defendants have no right to divide the joint family properties without allotting any share to the plaintiffs and the alleged partition to which plaintiffs are not the parties is not binding on them. The plaintiffs also pleaded that they have got half share in the suit lands. Accordingly, the relief of declaration that Khatha recorded in IHR2/97-98 with respect to the suit lands is illegal, void and is not binding on the plaintiffs was sought. The relief of partition and separate possession of half share of the plaintiffs in suit schedule lands was sought.

4. The defendants filed the written statement in which factum of relationship between the parties as well as the fact that suit properties were ancestral properties and originally belonged to one Byregowda viz., the common ancestor was admitted. It was pleaded that sons of Byregowda have divided the properties of their father and defendants are in cultivating possession of their respective shares in the suit lands. It was also pleaded that plaintiffs have no right, title or