JUDGMENT : .

The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs/respondents No.1 and 2 in this appeal that suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant No.1 who is the father of deceased Santhosh and plaintiffs are the wife and son of the deceased Santhosh and they are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties of ½ share and gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is not binding. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that sale deed executed in favour of defendant No.3 by defendant No.2 is also not binding on the plaintiffs.

2. The defendants appeared and filed written statement contending that there was a partition during the life time of deceased Santhosh long back and he had taken money from the defendants as his share. Out of that money deceased Santhosh had purchased 16 guntas of land in Sy.No.101/1 of Jogannanakere Village. The defendants also took the contention that said property has to be included in the suit in the event that suit schedule properties are considered as joint family properties. It is also contended that plaintiff No.2 had remarried one Paramesh Gangadhar subsequent to the death of said San