The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plaintiff's right to share accrued only after the death of the father when there was no testamentary document, and the subsequent purchasers' title was defective.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. This matter is listed for admission. This Court heard the matter earlier and the learned counsel for the appellants sought time to place the citations before the Court. Accordingly, he has filed a memo with citations today before the Court.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dtd. 12/4/2022 passed in R.A.No.57/2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., H.D.Kote.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the suit items are ancestral and joint family properties of himself and defendants. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for share in the suit schedule properties and claimed the share on the ground that the defendants have refused to give share in respect of the suit schedule properties.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, the second defendant took the contention in the written statement by virtue of paluparikath dtd. 30/3/1966, the plaintiff severed from the joint family and also contended that in addition to paluparikath, sale deed dtd. 26/5/1980 was executed in respect of item No.1 by her father. It is also contended that her father had executed Will in respect of item No.2 and this Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and the same is also hit by the principles of partial partition and the suit is also barred by limitation. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for half share as claimed in the suit.

5. The Trial Court based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the issues. The plaintiff in order to substantiate his contention, he examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.P1 to P8a. On the other hand, the second defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and also examined five more witnesses as D.Ws.2 to D.W.6 and got marked the documents as Exs.D1 to D47.

6. The Trial Court after considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record while answering issue No.1, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove the fact that the suit items are ancestral and joint family properties of himself and defendants and came to the conclusion that already there was a partition dtd. 30/3/1996 and also came to the conclusion that the father had executed the Sale Deed dtd. 26/5/1980 and also came to the conclusion that defendant No.2 has proved the very execution of the Will in respect of item No.2 by her father and other issues are answered as 'negative' and came to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff has filed an appeal in R.A.No.57/2015 contending that the Trial Court has committed an error in dismissing the suit in entirety and also contended that the Trial Court erroneously came to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties are not amenable for partition and also the suit is barred by limitation and considering the grounds urged in the appeal memo, the First Appellate Court formulated the point that whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that item No.1 of the suit properties was self acquired properties of defendant No.2 by virtue of the sale deed (Ex.D1) executed by her father in her favour and also formulated the point whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that the item No.2 of the suit schedule properties was separate property of daughter of defendant No.2 namely., Krishnaveni by virtue of Will executed by Mr.Krishnappa in her favour and also formulated the point that whether defendant No.2 is the owner of item No.3 of the suit schedule properties by virtue of oral Will/arrangement made by her father Mr.Krishnappa in her favour, whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that defendant No.3 is the bonafide purchaser of the item No.3 of the suit properties and whether the Trial Court was justified in holding that defendant No.2 is the absolute owner of item No.4 of the suit properties.

7. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of both