The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the plaintiffs to a half share in the joint family properties, as determined by the appellate court.

JUDGMENT

1. Challenging judgment and decree dtd. 30/11/2017 passed by I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Haveri (for short, "first appellate Court") in R.A. no.43/2010, allowing appeal and setting aside judgment and decree dated 27.01 .2010 passed by Civil Judge (Sr .Dn.), Hangal (for short, "trial Court") dismissing suit in O.S. no.41/2007, filed for partition and separate possession, this Regular Second Appeal is filed.

2. Though this appeal is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

3. Appellants herein were defendants no.2 to 7 in suit and respondents no.2 to 9 in first appeal. Respondents no.1 and 2 herein were plaintiffs no.1 and 2 in suit and appellants no.1 and 2 in first appeal. Respondents no.3 and 4 herein were defendants no.8 and 9 in suit and respondents no.10 and 11 in first appeal. Defendant No.10 died during pendency of first appeal. Respondents no.5 to 12 are legal representatives of deceased defendant No.10. They were respondents no.12(a) to 12(i) in first appeal. For sake of convenience, parties to this appeal are referred to as per their ranks before trial Court.

4. That O.S. No.41/2007 was filed by plaintiffs seeking for partition of their half share in schedule 'A', 'B' and 'C' properties and for separate possession in schedule 'A' and 'B' properties and for grant of Rs.2,10,000.00 in schedule 'C' towards their half share. They also sought for award of mesne profits etc.

5. In plaint, it was stated that Rachappa was original propositus. He begot five children through his wife Gangamma namely Nagavva, Basappa, Rudrappa, Hiriyamma and Nagappa. It was further stated that propositus, his wife and all children had died and there was extinguishment of branch of Nagavva and Hiriyamma. However, Basappa had a daughter Veerasangavva. She also had a daughter Mahadevakka, but both of them had died leading to extinguishment of branch of Basappa also. Rudrappa, begot two daughters through his wife Neelavva namely Bhadravva and Premakka who are plaintiffs herein.

6. Nagappa had eight children through his wife Gangamma (defendant No.1) namely Basavanneppa (defendant No.5), Laxmavva (defendant No.6), Gangavva (defendant No.7), Shantavva (defendant No.8), Guddappa (defendant No.2), Basappa (defendant No.3), Rachappa (defendant No.4) and Iramma (defendant No.9).

7. It was stated that lands in Sy. No.78/1B+2 measuring 4 acres situated at Shikaripura, Hangal and Sy. No.79 measuring 2 Acres 25 guntas situated at Sangur village, Haveri comprised schedule 'A' properties while house Nos.309, 310 and 311 situated at Sangur village comprised schedule 'B' property. It was also stated that fixed deposit receipts in Karnataka Vikas Grameena Bank bearing account PCC nos.1031, 1032, 1033 and Rs.60,000.00 in S.B. Account comprised schedule 'C' properties.

8. It was stated that plaintiffs being daughters of deceased Rudrappa were entitled to half share in suit properties as they constituted members of joint family coparcenary. It was also stated that despite several demands, defendants no.1 and 2 had not partitioned their properties, thereby constraining plaintiffs to file suit properties.

9. After service of summons, defendants no.2 and 3 entered appearance and opposed suit stating that genealogy shown in plaint was incomplete as one more daughter of propositus Basamma wife of Mallappa Narachikatti was left out and therefore suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was also contended that suit schedule properties were self acquired properties of Basappa. Even assertion in plaint that name of Veerasangavva was mutated in respect of schedule 'A' properties and continued as such. It was also stated that during her lifetime Veerasangavva had adopted defendant no.3 as her adopted son about 15 years prior to suit and Veerasangavva continued to be in possession and cultivation of same and therefore, plaintiffs were not entitled for any share in suit schedule properties.