JUDGMENT :

Mr Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The plaintiffs in O.S. No.69/2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Badami (for short, 'the Trial Court') are in appeal. The plaintiffs are aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit.

3. The suit was filed for the relief of partition and separate possession. The admitted genealogy of the parties read as under:

4. The suit is filed in respect of four immoveable properties listed in schedule 'B'. There is no dispute over the fact that the occupancy right is granted in respect of the suit schedule properties by the jurisdictional Land Tribunal. As far as item Nos.1, 2 and 3 properties are concerned, Form-7 is filed by Ramappa, the eldest son of propositus Heerappa, and occupancy is granted in his name.

5. As far as item No.4 property is concerned, Form No.7 is filed by Dyavapa, the second son of propositus Heerappa, and the occupancy is granted in his name.

6. The third son Hanamanth has not filed any Form No.7. The suit is filed by the children of Dyvappa referred above and also the children of Hanamanth referred above. The suit is filed against the branch of Ramappa, the eldest son.

7. The defendants have contested the case on the premise that item Nos.1, 2 and 3 properties are the properties over which occupancy is granted by the jurisdictional Land Tribunal exclusively to Ramappa and based on this, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.

8. The Trial Court accepted the contentions of the contesting defendants and has held that item Nos.1 to 3 properties are the self-acquired properties of Ramappa and the suit even in respect of item No.4 property is also dismissed though Dyvappa, in whose favour occupancy is granted, has sought for partition in the said property contending that the said property is the joint family property.

9. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, plaintiffs are in appeal.

10. Sri. Ravi S.Balikai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that the Tribunal ignored the fact that the propositus Heerappa was the tenant in respect of the properties and tenancy devolves on his sons under Section 24 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, and occupancy granted in the name of one of the sons should be treated as grant of occupancy on behalf of the remaining sons of the propositus Heerappa. And, that being the position, the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit.

11. Sri. Anand R.Kolli, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the Trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit as occupancy granted in the name of Ramappa cannot be construed as occupancy for the benefit of the remaining children of the propositus Heerappa.

12. This Court has considered the rival contentions raised at the Bar, and perused the impugned judgment and decree, and also the records placed before the court.

13. Sri. Ravi S.Balikai, learned counsel would refer to Exs.P.34, 35, 36 & 37, the property records pertaining to the suit schedule properties for the year 1930 to 1950. By referring to these documents, he would contend that the aforesaid item Nos.1, 2 and 4 properties are concerned, it would disclose that the properties stood in the name of Heerappa, the propositus of the family, and he was the tenant in respect of the said properties. He would further contend that there is no dispute over the fact that Heerappa had three sons, Ramappa, Dyavappa and Hanamanth and after the death of Heerappa, the tenenacy would devolve upon his three sons. He would further contend that the defendants have not established the division of the properties after demise of Heerappa and on this premise he would contend that the plaintiffs have established the fact that the tenancy is a joint family tenancy inherited by after the demise of Heerappa. As far as item No.3 property i.e., the property bearing Sy.No.139/2 is concerned he would refer to Form No.7 filed by Ramappa, which would indicate that the