JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is filed by the defendant Nos.1 and 2 in O.S.136/2012 challenging the concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts that the plaintiff is entitled to an undivided share in the suit schedule properties.

2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial court.

3. The plaintiff contended that he and defendant Nos.1 to 4 are the children of Venkatappa, who was the propositus of a joint family which owned the properties mentioned in the suit as 'A' Schedule properties. The 'B' Schedule properties were purchased by Venkatappa out of the income generated from the 'A' Schedule properties. He claimed that the revenue records of the 'A' Schedule properties stood in the name of his grand father Govindaiah and was not transferred to the name of Venkatappa, but he managed the suit properties as a Kartha till his death in 1994. It was alleged that the suit properties were not partitioned, and therefore, they continued to be the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 to 4. The plaintiff was a Government employee, and therefore, he could not apply himself for the up-keep and management of the joint family propert