IMPORTANT POINT
In partition suits, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their relationship to the deceased and the nature of the properties as joint family assets.

JUDGMENT :

(Ramachandra D. Huddar, J.)

This appeal by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th December 2010 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli, in O.S.No.463/2006. Parties to this appeal are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court for the purpose of ease.

2. The records of this appeal reveal that, during the pendency of this appeal, Appellant No.2 died and her Legal heir is brought on record in the shape of appellant No.2(A). Likewise, Respondent Nos.8 to 13 are also impleaded in this appeal as per the orders dated 21.03.2023. Cause-Title is amended accordingly.

3. That plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 arrayed as respondent Nos.1 to 3 in this appeal filed a suit in O.S.No.463/2006 against defendants seeking relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties more fully described in the schedule appended to the plaint with mesne profits thereon. (Hereinafter referred to as 'suit schedule properties' for the purpose of convenience). The plaintiffs have furnished the genealogical tree to show their relationship with defendant nos.1 to 3. The following genealogical will be helpful in appreciating the claims of the parties:

4. According to plaintiffs, one Venkataramaiah was the propositus, who had 3 sons by name Annayappa, Narayanappa & Munivenkatappa. Annayappa is their ancestor. Annayappa & his wife Munivenkatamma had two sons by name Venkataramanappa, who is no more, & Venkataswamappa, who is arrayed as defendant No. 1. This Venkataramanappa died leaving behind his wife Jayamma and son Krishnappa, who are also no more. This Krishnappa died leaving behind Umamma, i.e., plaintiff No.3 as his legal heir, & also plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2 are the children of Krishnappa & Umamma. It is stated in the genealogical tree that Venkataramanappa, the 2nd ancestor of the plaintiffs, had a kept mistress by name Muniyamma, who is arrayed as defendant No. 2. This genealogical tree is strongly disputed by the defendant Nos. 1 to 3.

5. According to the plaintiffs, during the lifetime of Annayappa, there was a partition in the family properties between Annayappa and his two brothers, as stated in the genealogical tree. Thus, on partition, all these 3 brothers started residing separately. It is stated that, in the said partition, the landed properties measuring 1 Acre, 22 Guntas in Sy. No. 201/2, 1 Acre, 5 Guntas in Sy. No. 201/3, 6 Guntas in Sy. No. 171/6, and 4 Acres in Sy. No. 215 situated at Mahadevakoganahalli village, Bengaluru North Taluk, were allotted to the share of Annayappa, which were described as schedule 'A' properties. In addition to the said landed properties, the house property bearing Kanesumari Nos. 137/47, 168, and site No. 9/2 with katha No.103 and site No. 9/2 situated in the same village also fell to the share of Annayappa. These house properties are referred to as schedule 'B' properties in the plaint. It is stated by the plaintiff that, during the lifetime of Annayappa, all these properties were standing in his name. After the death of Venkataramanappa, plaintiff Nos.1 & 2 and defendant No.1 succeeded to 'A' and 'B' schedule properties.

6. It is stated that the grandfather of the plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 died in the year 1985, and their father died 20.12.2003. It is alleged that, during the lifetime of their grandfather, he was in joint possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties. It is alleged that, due to misunderstanding amongst the women folk in the joint family, the grandparents of plaintiffs No. 1 & 2 and defendant No. 1 started residing separately, but there was no partition in the schedule property by metes and bounds. Their joint family continued to be joint, and the fathers of plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2 used to assist defendant No. 1 in all the agricultural operations and also maintenance of 'B' schedule properties.

7. It is alleged that, defendant No. 1 behind the back of plaintiff Nos. 1 & 2 got transferred the revenue entries in respect of s