The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish the remaining land after a sale of joint family property and the probative value of registered documents in determining entitlement to a share.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Sri Prabhugoud B Tumbigi, learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel Sri Sanjay Kumar, for K.S. Bheemaiah, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 (A & B). Perused the records.

2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.7/2000. Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their original ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. A suit came to be filed by the plaintiffs seeking partition of her 1/3rd share after deducting the area sold by father of the first plaintiff. It is contended in the plaint that defendants belong to Maneyapanda family of Kodava race governed by Hindu Law. Sri. Thammaiah is their common ancestor and he had three sons, namely:

Ponnappa, Nanjappa and Subbaiah. Among them, Ponnappa had two sons by name Kaverappa and Thammaiah. Kaverappa died leaving behind his two sons namely; Poovaiah and Kushalappa. Thammaiah had two sons by name Muthappa and Ponnappa. Nanjappa had only one son by name Appachu. Said Appachu died leaving behind his daughter Sabitha, who is the first plaintiff. Subbaiah had only one son by name Chengappa.

He also died leaving behind his only son Subbaiah, who is the first defendant as his legal heir. During the life time of the father of the first plaintiff, Appachu sold an area of 2.50 acres of wet land out of 3.82 acres and 1.50 acres of bane land in Sy.No.109/1 to the first defendant and his father. Marriage of the first plaintiff was solemnized with one N.B. Ramesh of Arameri village. After death of her father, first plaintiff is in deemed joint possession of the schedule property and is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property after deducting the area sold to Appachu by her father.

4. On receipt of the suit summons, third defendant appeared in person and sixth defendant did not choose to appear, defendant Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 putting their appearance through their counsel and first defendant alone filed his written statement.

5. In the written statement it is contended that in the year 1983, due to acute financial constraints of the father of the first plaintiff, he has sold 3 acres, 1.50 acres of bane land in Sy.No.109/1 under the registered sale deed dtd. 27/10/1883 for a sum of Rs.6, 000.00 and 1.50 acres of bane land and 2.50 acres of wet land in Sy.No.102/3 under the registered sale deed dtd. 17/4/1985 for a consideration amount of Rs.10, 000.00 each to perform the marriage of the first plaintiff. It is further contended that first plaintiff is also a party to both the transactions. It is also contended by the defendant that late Thammaiah who is the great grand father of the first plaintiff, was in possession of 11.48 acres of wet land in Sy.No.102 in Mugatageri village and also 9.23 acres of bane land in Sy.No.109 attached to the wet land was equally partitioned among three sons of Late Thammaiah. However, admits that Ponnappa, Nanjappa and Subbaiah are the three sons of Thammaiah and it is also contended by the first defendant that Nanjappa and Subbaiaha subsequently had one son by name; Appachu, who is the father of the first plaintiff and Chengappa have inherited three acres of bane land and 3.5 acres of wet land through a oral partition effected in the year 1972.

6. First defendant specifically denied that the first plaintiff is in deemed constructive possession of the suit schedule properties and denied that the schedule properties are amenable to partition and denied that plaintiffs have got 1/3rd share in the suit property after deducting the area sold by her father in favour of the first defendant. In the alternative, first defendant submitted that in the event of partition of the properties sold by the father of the first plaintiff to which the plaintiffs were also parties, the land that has been sold to the first defendant be allotted to him in addition to his own share in the suit property.

7. In view of the rival contentions, Trial Court raised the following issues:

1.