The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of Sec. 6 (1) and Sec. 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and the proviso to Sec. 6 (1) saving dispositions and alienations made prior to 20/12/2004.

JUDGMENT :

R.DEVDAS J.

This Regular First Appeal is filed by one of the half brothers of the plaintiff, Smt.Gangavva, whose suit for partition and separate possession was decreed in part and the plaintiff was allotted half share in all the suit schedule properties excluding northern 4 acres in Sy.No.28 of Dhupadal village, Saundatti taluk, Belgaum district.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. One Ningappa Fakkirappa Paschapur had two wives, Basavva and Parvatavva. Through Basavva, Ningappa had a son, Sadeppa, while through Parvatavva, he had Gangavva, the plaintiff. The relationship is not disputed. Ningappa died on 11/8/1968. After the death of Ningappa, his son, Sadeppa got his name entered in the record of rights, as per M.E.No.1281 in respect of the immovable properties left behind by Ningappa. Under a sale deed dtd. 8/5/1992, Sadeppa-defendant No.1 purchased 4 acres 7 guntas in Sy.No.230 of Karalakatti village, in the name of his son Shivanand, defendant No.2. It is the contention of the plaintiff that since Sadeppa had no other source of income other than the agricultural income derived from land bearing No.28, which measures 11 acres 15 guntas, the land purchased in Sy.No.230 also belongs to the joint family.

4. On 9/9/2002, defendant No.1 sold 5 acres 32 guntas in Sy.No.28, which is the joint family properties, in favour of defendants 3 and 4, for a valuable sale consideration of Rs.1,28,000.00. It is stated in the recitals of the sale deed that defendant No.1 sold the property since he had to repay the loan taken from PLD Bank and for family necessities, for development of the remaining landed property. The plaintiff contended that out of the income generated from the joint family agricultural properties, defendant No.1 purchased house properties bearing VPC No.234 and 242 during the year 1982-1983. Similarly, the third item of the house property, which is a vacant site, was purchased in the name of defendant No.2.

5. Defendant No.2 has filed a detailed written statement and defendant No.1 adopted the same. Defendants 3 and 4 also filed separate written statements. It was contended by defendants 1 and 2 that since the plaintiff knew about the sale transaction of the year 2002, the suit was not maintainable since the action was not brought within the period of limitation. It was contended that the plaintiff has admitted in the plaint that although she was married in the year 1976, when she was about 18 years old, even after the marriage, defendant No.1 used to give her share from the income generated from the joint family properties. However, two years prior to the filing of the suit, defendant No.1 stopped giving her share and therefore, that was the cause of action for the plaintiff to file the suit. Defendant No.1 contended that he used to toil hard and since he worked in other's property, he earned sufficient money and he purchased the landed property bearing Sy.No.32 on 4/4/1966 for a consideration of Rs.8,000.00. However, in a family partition, Sy.No.32 was allotted in favour of defendant No.2 and the revenue records were entered in the name of defendant No.2.

6. Insofar as defendants 3 and 4 are concerned, they have contended that the sale transaction is of the year 2002 and the suit being brought in the year 2011, is hit by the law of limitation and is not maintainable. It is contended that the plaintiff was married in the year 1976 and the revenue records were standing in the name of defendant No.1 consequent to the demise of his father, Ningappa, in the year 1968. Moreover, it is clearly stated in the recitals that defendant No.1 sold a portion of the property for family necessities and to repay the loan at PLD Bank. It was therefore contended that defendants 3 and 4 are bonafide purchasers and their interest should be protected.

7. The trial Court framed the following issues based on the pleadings of the parties:

i) Whether the plaintiff pro