JUDGMENT :

Venkatesh Naik T., J.

1. The appeal is filed by defendant Nos.4 to 9 and cross objections is filed by plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Raiyabag, dated 26.04.2016 passed in OS No. 05/2012.

2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

3. Brief facts of the plaintiffs case as hereunder.

4. The appellants are defendant Nos.4 to 9, respondents Nos.1 to 5 are plaintiff Nos.1, 2, 2(a), 2(b) and 3. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession. The suit schedule properties bearing Sy. No. 191/B and 193 situated at Hidakal village. The original propositus Nagappa died leaving behind his three sons by name Ghulappa, Kareppa and Purandar as his legal representatives. Plaintiff No. 1 Smt. Chandravva is the daughter of defendant No. 1, Second plaintiff Smt. Kempavva is his wife. The plaintiffs and defendants are Hindu un-divided Joint family members and suit schedule properties bearing No. 193 is the ancestral joint family property of plaintiffs and defendants. The original propositus Nagappa and his three sons got entered their names in the RTC extracts, Mutation Entries No. 2111 and the land bearing Sy. No. 191/1B has been purchased by three brothers out of the joint family funds. The plaintiffs and defendants are in possession of suit schedule properties and they are cultivating the same. There is no partition by meets and bounds in the family of plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs are having 1/3rd share each in the 1/3rd share of defendant No. 1. During the year 2012 the plaintiffs requested the defendants for partition of the suit property. However, the defendants denied to make any partition. Hence, the cause of action arises for the institution of the suit. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties.

5. After institution of the suit, the defendants appeared through their counsel, defendant No. 2 has filed his written statement denying the plaint averments. However, he has admitted the relationship and denied that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants. The defendants have taken contention that plaintiffs are not the wife and daughter of defendant No. 1 respectively. Hence, defendant No. 2 denied the genealogy furnished by plaintiffs. Further, the defendants have taken contention that, one Akkavva (defendant No. 4) is the wife of defendant No. 1 and Smt. Lakkawwa (defendant No. 5), Smt. Savakka (defendant No. 6), Smt. Mayawwa (defendant No. 7), Sri. Siddappa (defendant No. 8), Sri. Nagappa (defendant No. 9) are the children of defendant No. 1 born through defendant No. 4 - Smt. Akkavvva W/o. Kareppa Madrigol. It is contended that defendant No. 1 never married plaintiff No. 2 and plaintiff No. 1 is not the daughter of defendant No. 1 born through plaintiff No. 2. It is contended that deceased defendant No. 1 during his life time given wardi to the Tahasildar Raibag on 24.11.2011 and also given consent letter for entering the name of sons Sri. Siddappa and Nagappa, the sons of Kareppa Madrigol to the suit properties. It is contended that the plaintiffs have filed false suit in order to harass the wife of defendant No. 1 by name Smt. Akkawwa and his three daughters and two sons, taking undue advantage of the death of defendant No. 1, hence have filed false suit to grab the property of deceased Kareppa, though, plaintiffs have no way relation