Sec. 14 of the Hindu Succession Act provides that any property possessed by a female Hindu becomes her absolute property, regardless of how it was acquired.

JUDGMENT :

1. This regular second appeal is filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 1/12/2011 passed by the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Davangere, in O.S.No.117/2008, which has been confirmed in R.A.No.10/2012 by the court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, by its judgment and decree dtd. 1/3/2014.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the appeal are referred to as per their rankings given before the trial court.

3. Brief facts of the case that would be relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are: The plaintiff had filed O.S.No.117/2008 before the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Davangere (for brevity "the trial court") against the defendants seeking for partition and separate possession to the extent of their 1/4th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that she is the daughter of one Revanappa, son of Karibasappa through his first wife Hanumanthamma. Defendant No.1 is her sister and one Siddesh is her brother. Said Siddesh died unmarried and therefore, according to the plaintiff, herself and defendant No.1 are the only children of Revanappa through his first wife Hanumanthamma. Hanumanthamma is said to have died about 20 years back and it is the case of the plaintiff that during the life time of Hanumanthamma, Revanappa had married one Prema and all of them lived together in a house constituting a joint family. It is the further case of the plaintiff that Revanappa had two children through his second wife Prema, who are defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the present suit. Prema is said to have died in the year 2000 and Revanappa is said to have died on 15/7/2008 leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants as his legal representatives.

5. It is the further case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 being the eldest member of the joint family was looking after the affairs of the joint family property and since defendant Nos.2 and 3 were minors, one Suvarnamma, who is the relative of Prema, was taking care of defendant Nos.2 and 3. Defendant No.1 in collusion with defendant Nos.2 and 3 tried to alienate the suit schedule property without the consent of the plaintiff and after coming to know about the same, the plaintiff insisted for partition of the suit schedule property and since defendant Nos.1 to 3 refused, she had filed O.S.No.117/2008 before the trial court.

6. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 appeared before the trial court on receipt of summons. Defendant Nos.2 and 3, who were minors, were represented by their guardian Suvarnamma. Defendant No.1 filed written statement admitting the plaint averments regarding joint family and also admitted the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. However, defendant No.1 in her written statement contended that her father Revanappa married Prema after the death of his first wife and she denied that she was trying to alienate the suit schedule property by colluding with defendant Nos.2 and 3. Defendant No.1 further contended that she being the co-parcener is entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property and hence, sought for a decree in her favour to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 being minors represented through their guardian by name Suvarnamma filed their written statement contending that Revanappa had married Prema after the death of his first wife Hanumanthamma. The said Prema had died in the year 2000. After the death of Prema, Revanappa married Suvarnamma, who is the sister of Prema. After the death of Revanappa, Suvarnamma and defendant Nos.2 and 3 being the wife and children of Revanappa succeeded to the estate of late Revanappa and they also contended that the suit schedule item Nos.2 and 3 is the self-acquired property of Prema and hence, it is contended that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 do not have any share in the suit schedule item nos.2 and 3 property. They also contended tha