JUDGMENT

1. The defendants have preferred this second appeal being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 6/11/2012 passed in R.A.No.6/2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady, Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for brevity), wherein, the appeal preferred by the plaintiffrespondent No.1 herein was allowed with costs and judgment and decree dtd. 1/12/2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) & JMFC, Belthangady, Dakshina Kannada (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for brevity) in O.S.No.34/2001 was set aside. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs and it was held that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share in the schedule property and a separate enquiry is ordered regarding future mesne profit.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their status and rank before the Trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit before the trial Court in O.S.No.34/2001 against defendant Nos.1 to 6 seeking partition of plaint schedule properties i.e., 'A' schedule properties into seven equal shares by metes and bounds and to allot one such share to the plaintiff and for mesne profit and costs. The schedule 'A' properties appended to the plaint describes ten items of agricultural properties i.e., various sub-divisions in Sy.Nos.360 and 361.

4. It is contended by the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is widow of late Rukmayya Gowda. Plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 6 are their daughters. Rukmayya Gowda was registered as an occupant in respect of schedule properties as per the order passed by the Land Tribunal in LRY.No.312/74-75 and 315/74-75. The occupancy certificate was issued in Form No.10 in the name of Rukmayya Gowda. After his death, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 6 have inherited the plaint schedule properties and the plaintiff is entitled for 1/7th share in the same.

5. It is contended that defendant Nos.1 to 4 are in possession of suit schedule properties and when plaintiff demanded her 1/7th share from defendant Nos.1 to 4 by issuing notice dtd. 9/11/2000, they have issued a reply taking untenable contentions that late Rukmayya Gowda had settled the schedule properties in their favour. It is contended by the plaintiff that late Rukmayya Gowda had no right to execute the settlement deed as the said properties were vested with the Government as on the date of execution of the settlement deed. The said document is concocted and it does not convey any right in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 4. The said document is not binding on the plaintiff. Therefore, plaintiff sought for partition and separate possession of her 1/7th share in the schedule properties.

6. Defendant Nos.2 to 4 have filed the written statement denying the contentions of the plaintiff. However, defendants admitted that occupancy right in respect of schedule properties was granted in favour of late Rukmayya Gowda by the Land Tribunal, Belthangady and Form No.10 was issued in his favour. The relationship between the parties is also admitted. However, the claim of the plaintiff that she is entitled for 1/7th share over the schedule properties is denied. The defendants in the written statement, admitted that the plaintiff got issued legal notice dtd. 9/11/2000 demanding for partition and separate possession of her share. However, it is stated that a reply notice is addressed to the plaintiff.

7. It is contended that when late Rukmayya Gowda was in sound disposing state of mind, he executed the settlement deed/Will dtd. 15/9/1978 and settled the schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.2 to 4. While executing the said deed, late Rukmayya Gowda had reserved himself the right to enjoy the schedule properties during his life time and to get the occupancy right over the same in his name. Accordingly, occupancy right was conferred on him. After the death of Rukmayya Gowda, as per terms of settlement deed, these defenda