JUDGMENT :

K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.

Both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.09.2001 passed in O.S.No.155/2001 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Muddebihal (for short the trial Court’), whereby the suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule immovable properties filed by the plaintiffs (respondent Nos.1 to 6 in both the appeals) against the appellants-defendant Nos.2 to 11 and respondent No.7-defendant No.1 was decreed by the trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants.

2. RFA No.1012/2001 is preferred by defendant Nos.3 to 7 and 11, while RFA No.23/2002 is preferred by defendant Nos.8 to 10.

3. The fact leading to the present appeals may be briefly stated as under:

Respondent Nos.1 to 6 – plaintiffs presented the plaint claiming partition and separate possession of their alleged 8/9th share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for other relief’s. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 and 5 and 6 claimed to be the children of defendant No.1 -Bhimappa Nagappa Waddar, while plaintiff No.4 – Smt.Janaki Bai was his wife. Defendant No.1 remained ex-parte in the suit and did not contest the same. Defendant Nos.2 to 11 were alienees in respect of portions of the suit schedule properties and they contested the suit. It is relevant to state that undisputedly, the suit schedule properties had been alienated and sold in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 11 during the period 1980-85 under various sale deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 11. It is relevant to state that while plaint ‘A’ schedule properties are landed properties comprising of six items, plaint ‘B’ schedule property is a residential house.

3.1 A perusal of the plaint averments will indicate that defendant No.1 was the son of Nagappa Waddar, who was the son of Shettappa Waddar. It is specifically averred in the plaint that the suit schedule properties were the self acquired properties of the aforesaid Shettappa Waddar, who expired in 1975. It is also averred that the aforesaid Nagappa Waddar, father of defendant No.1/son of Shettappa Waddar predeceased his father and he expired on 24.02.1965. It is further averred that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral Hindu joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1.

3.2 Plaintiffs contended that defendant No.1 was employed as a driver in KSRTC and was getting more than Rs.1,000/- per month by way of salary. It was contended that defendant No.1 was given to vices and squandered away joint family properties and neglected the plaintiffs. It was also contended that without any legal necessity, defendant No.1 sold away and alienated most of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 11 to meet his immoral and illegal expenses and the said alienations are void and not binding on the plaintiffs and their share in the suit schedule properties. In this context, it is relevant to state that even according to the plaintiffs, most of the suit schedule properties were alienated during the period 1980 to 1985 prior to institution of the suit in the year 1986. Putting forth the aforesaid averments and claiming 8/9th share in the suit schedule properties and maintenance and marriage expenses for plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, the plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit.

3.3 As stated supra, defendant No.1 remained ex-parte and did not contest the suit. The defendant Nos.2 to 11 – alienees contested the suit and filed their written statement inter alia contending that the suit schedule properties were the separate and self acquired properties of defendant No.1 and that he had sold and alienated the same in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 11, who were bonafide purchasers / transferees for valuable consideration prior to institution of the suit. It was also contended that the alienations made by defendant No.1 were for legal necessity and benefit of the estate and consequently, the plaintiffs were not entitled to put forth any claim over