JUDGMENT :

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 3.4.2017, passed in R.A.No.6/2012, on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mandya.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 6 are the children of Late B. Channaiah. The said B. Channaiah had two wives. The first wife by name Jayamma is no more and she had only one daughter i.e., the plaintiff – Smt. Shanthamma. Through the second wife, her name is also Jayamma, defendants No.2 to 6 are born to the said B. Channaiah. It is contended that during the life time of B. Channaiah he was managing the joint family affairs. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants, as such, the plaintiff has entitled for 1/7th share in the suit schedule properties. In spite of requesting several times to effect the partition, the defendants did not heed to the requests of the plaintiff and they are trying to eliminate the suit schedule properties in favour of third party. Hence, the