JUDGMENT :

Mr. Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - The defendants No.2 to 6 in O.S.No.124/2010 on the file of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi are before this Court under section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure ('Code' for short) challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2013 passed in the above said suit.

2. The suit for partition and separate possession filed by the two daughters of late Chandrappa is decreed in part. Plaintiff No.2 was given 1/5th + 1/25th share and plaintiff No.1 is also held entitled to 1/25th share in Item Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs have not questioned the said judgment and decree.

3. Genealogy of the parties is as under:

IMAGE

Brief facts:

4.1 One Chandrappa was the propositus. He died on 20.11.1989. His wife Shankravva died on 05.09.2006. The couple had three sons and two daughters. Irappa is the elder son, Godachappa is the second son and second son died in 1995, Akkavva is the daughter who is plaintiff No.1, Savakka is another daughter who is plaintiff No.2 and Fakkirappa is the last son who is arrayed as defendant No.7. The heirs of Godachappa, the second son who died in 1995 are arrayed as defendants No.2 to 6. Defendants No.8 and 9 are the purchasers of one of the suit schedule properties bearing Sy.No.147/1B measuring 4 acres. The suit is filed in respect of 'A' schedule properties which are seven in number and agricultural lands and 'B' schedule which are four in number which are the residential houses.

4.2 The plaintiffs claim that all the properties were originally held by Chandrappa, the propositus and after his demise the mother and children inherited the properties and there is no partition between the brothers and sisters and there was no partition during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiffs i.e. Chandrappa, as such the plaintiffs claim equal share in the suit schedule properties.

4.3 The defendants No.3 to 6 contested the suit. The defendants put up a defence of previous partition of 1981 and it is their contention that in the partition of 1981 the Item No.1 of 'A' schedule properties is allotted to the share of the father Chandrappa and remaining Item Nos.2 to 7 properties are divided between three sons of Chandrappa.

4.4 Contesting defendants contend that this partition of 1981 is duly evidenced in mutation entry No.5595 of Yaraguppi village. It is their further contention that this partition is acted upon and it is also contended that the property bearing Sy.No.147/1B was sold in the year 1992 in favour of defendant No.8 and Sy.No.49/2A was sold in favour of defendant No.9 in the year 2000.

4.5 The purchasers namely defendants No.8 and 9 also contested the suit and claimed that they are the bonafide purchasers of the properties purchased by them and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

4.6 The trial Court accepted the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of the properties which are in the hands of the brothers. The suit is dismissed insofar as properties which are already sold. The trial Court has also accepted the contention of the defendants that plaintiff No.2 being born before 1956 is not entitled to claim equal share in the suit schedule properties.

5. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, defendants No.2 to 6 are in appeal.

6. Heard Sri.D.L.Ladkhan, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri.S.C.Hiremath, the learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3.

7. Sri.D.L.Ladkhan, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the previous partition though pleaded and established by the defendants, the trial Court faile