JUDGMENT :

(H.P. SANDESH, J.)

This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal is filed against concurrent finding granting 1/6^th share in favour of the plaintiffs, who are daughters of defendant No.1 and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are also the daughters of defendant No.1.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the children of defendant No.1. The suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of themselves and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and contend that the partition entered between the defendant Nos.1 and 4 is not binding on the plaintiffs.

4. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement denying the claim of the plaintiffs and mainly contend that suit is filed only with an intention to harass defendant No.4 and the same is bad for mis-joinder and non- joinder of necessary parties. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 have alienated Sy.No.215/16 to an extent of 1 acre 2 guntas to one Sathish on 21.02.2012 and the said property is not included in the suit and suit sch