JUDGMENT :

Defendant Nos.2, 4 and 8 are before this Court being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.08.2004 passed in O.S.No.289/1995 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC, Anekal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’ for brevity), decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in part and declaring that the plaintiffs and defendants are entitled for share in the schedule properties, which was confirmed vide judgment dated 20.08.2009 in R.A.No.83/2006 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) & JMFC, Anekal (hereinafter referred to as ‘First Appellate Court’ for brevity).

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 plaintiff-Smt. Munichowdamma (for short 'plaintiff') filed suit O.S.No.289/1995 against defendant Nos.1 to 8, seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/6th share over the schedule properties and also for mesne profits. In all ten items of the properties were described along with the boundaries in the schedule appended to the plaint. It is contended that the plaintiff is the daughter of defendant No.1- Nyathareddy and defendant No.2 is his son. It is stated that the land bearing Sy.No.81 belongs to the family of the plaintiff and at the time of her marriage, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have promised to give the said property to the plaintiff towards ‘Arishina Kunkuma’ during division of the properties. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 have jointly executed a family arrangement but styled as gift deed. The plaintiff was put in possession of the said property and thus she is cultivating the said land.

4. It is contended that defendant No.2 started proclaiming that he will alienate Sy.No.81 measuring 1.18 acres, which was in possession of the plaintiff. He colluded with the village accountant and changed the khatha in his name as per ISA-17 of ISA 7/94-95. This change was during the life time of defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiff approached defendant Nos.1 and 2 but defendant No.2 was adamant in not permitting the plaintiff to enjoy the property to the exclusion of others. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration to declare that she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said property by virtue of the document dated 12.02.1984 and for permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the same. During the pendency of the said suit, defendant No.1 died and defendant No.2 denied execution of the document dated 12.02.1984 and taken untenable contentions. Therefore, the plaintiff got amended the plaint and sought for partition and separate possession of her 1/6th share over the schedule properties. It is contended that the plaintiff, defendant No.2 and 5 to 8 are having right over the schedule properties. Defendant No.4 is the third wife of defendant No.1, who is also entitled for share over the schedule properties after the death of defendant No.1. Therefore, the plaintiff prayed for partition and separate possession of her share in the schedule properties. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and her legal representatives were brought on record.

5. Defendant No.2 appeared before the trial Court and filed his written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiff. It is contended that the plaintiff has no right whatsoever over the schedule properties. It is contended that the land measuring 1.18 acres in Sy.No.81 was never given to the plaintiff and there was no execution of any document as contended by the plaintiff. It is denied that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the said land.

6. It is contended that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Defendant No.1 was having three wives. Each one of them are having children who are subsequently arrayed as defendant Nos.5 to 8. It is contended that during the year 1984, there was a division in the