JUDGMENT :

Ashok S. Kinagi, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 07.03.2005, passed in O.S.No. 480/1999 by the Principal Civil Judge (Jr Dn.) & JMFC, Tumkur, confirmed by the judgment and decree dated 01.04.2011, passed in R.A.No. 175/2007 by the I Additional District Judge, Tumkur, the appellants have filed this second appeal.

2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants are the defendants 1 to 6 and respondent No. 1 is the plaintiff, respondents No. 2 to 9 are defendants 7 to 14 before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading rise to filing of this appeal are as under:

The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties. The plaintiff, defendants 12 and 13 and father of defendants 1 to 6 are sons of Late Nagaiah. Defendants 7 to 11 are the sons and daughters of Muddamma, D/o Nagaiah. The plaintiff and defendants are the members of joint Hindu coparcener family and the properties are the ancestral coparcenary/ properties of plaintiff and defendants who are in joint possession of the same. The plaintiff has l/4th share in all the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff demanded partition and separate possession of his share to which the defendants put off promising to do it on some reason or the other. But they are keeping off their promise. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for partition and separate possession.

Defendants No. 1 to 6 did not file written statement. Defendants No. 12 to 14 filed written statement admitting the relationship of the parties. It is denied that the plaintiff and defendants are the members of joint Hindu coparcener family and the properties mentioned in the suit schedule are the ancestral coparcener properties and they are in joint possession of the same. It is denied that plaintiff has l/4th share in all suit schedule properties. It is contended that there was a division in the joint family of the plaintiff and his brothers, namely, N.Rangaiah, Veerarangaiah - defendant No. 12 and Veerakyathaiah -defendant No. 13 during the year 1960. Since the said division, the plaintiff and his brothers are residing separately and enjoying the properties that came to their share. Out of suit schedule properties, item No. 11, 12, 13, 15, 17 and 4 were the ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff and his brothers. The plaintiff was allotted the properties situated at T.Gollahalli Village of Koratagere Taluk shown as item Nos. 11, 12 and 17 and his brothers N.Rangaiah, Veerarangaiah and Veerakyathaiah were each allotted l/3rd share in Sy.No. 23 in item Nos.4, 13 and 15. Item Nos.1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10 of the suit schedule properties, all situated at Jodisatyamangala Village which was an inam land. N.Rangaiah, the father of defendants 1 to 6 and husband of defendant No. 14 were cultivating the said land as a tenant. After the advent of Inams Abolition Act in the state of Mysore, the said lands vested in the State Government and as the said N.Rangaiah was cultivating the said land as a tenant, occupancy rights was conferred on him and the khatha of the said lands was also made out in his name and he paid the premium amount of Rs.215/- as per the orders. Thus it is clear that the properties are the self acquired properties of said N.Rangaiah. Veerakyathaiah purchased Sy.No. 76 and 95 of Satyamangala Village described in item No. 6 and 9 of the suit schedule properties from one Subbannachar, the owner of the property for valuable consideration under registered sale deed dated 14.11.1967, since then, he is in physical possession and enjoyment of the same as the absolute owner thereof and