Appellants must provide sufficient evidence to prove their familial relationship and claim to joint family property, which were inadequately substantiated in this case.

JUDGMENT :

(M.G.S. KAMAL, J.)

1. This appeal is by the plaintiffs, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 3^rd January 2020, passed in O.S. No.135/2017 by the Addl. Senior Civil Judge at Haveri (for short “the trial Court”), dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, which is confirmed by the judgment and order, dated 12^th October 2023, passed in R.A. No.7/2023 on the file of the Prl. Judge, Family Court, Haveri (for short “the First Appellate Court”).

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the suit properties being the agriculture lands situated at Basapur Village, originally belonged to one Kariyallappa Hanumapur, who passed away about 35 years ago. His wife, Yallavva, also died several years ago. The said Kariyallappa Hanumapur had three sons namely Neelappa, Mallappa and Guddappa, all of them are no more. Neelappa died in the year 1993, and his wife Fakkiravva passed away in the year 2017. The plaintiffs are the children of said Neelappa and Fakkiravva. Mallappa died issueless.

Guddappa was married to one Gangavva. Both of them passed away leaving behind their son defendant No.1. They had another son by name Hanumantappa, who was married to one Shantavva. The said Hanumantappa and Shantavva passed away leaving behind defendant Nos.2 to 5 as their heirs.

2.1. After the death of propositus-Kariyallappa Hanumapur, names of his two sons were mutated in the revenue records in respect of the suit lands. Apart from the plaintiffs and defendants, there are no other legal representatives of Kariyallappa Haumapur.

2.2. However, after the death of Neelappa Kariyallappa Hanumapur, defendant No.1 had filed a false varadhi stating that, Neelappa Kariyallappa Hanumapur died unmarried and without leaving behind any heirs. The said varadhi was done without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and behind their back. Upon learning of this, the plaintiffs filed the objections before the Deputy Tahsildar, Guttal, which was registered as M.R. No.H-34/2012-13.

2.3. Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Tahsildar, Guttal, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Haveri, in which the mutation entry bearing MR No.H-34/2012-13 came to be cancelled vide order dated 15.06.2015 in RTS AP No.26/2014-15 and he was directed to reenter the names of all the legal representatives in the revenue records. Accordingly, the names of the legal representatives of Neelappa and Guddappa were entered in the revenue records in respect of the land bearing R.S. No.4/1.

2.4. Further, the Karnataka Niravari Nigama Limited, Ranebennur, acquired the lands bearing R.S. Nos.21/7 and 21/1A to the extent of 15 guntas and 22 guntas respectively, in which, the plaintiffs are also entitled for a half share in the compensation amount. In respect of the remaining properties, the names of the legal representatives of Neelappa Kariyallappa @ Kariyappa Hanumapur and Guddappa have continued in the records. Since the plaintiffs have sought for partition of the suit properties, which was denied, they were constrained to file the present suit for partition and separate possession.

3. Defendant Nos.1, 4 and 5 appeared and filed their written statements, denying the case of the plaintiffs and the relationship as claimed. Referring to the genealogy shown in paragraph No.3 of the plaint, it is categorically contended that Neelappa S/o. Kariyallappa Hanumapur, never married to Fakkiravva, and that the plaintiffs are not the children born from such wedlock between Neelappa and Fakkiravva.

3.1. It is contended that Fakkiravva was actually the wife of one Neelappa S/o. Muddakappa Hanumapur, and that the plaintiffs may have been born out of the wedlock between said Neelappa S/o. Muddakappa Hanumapur and Fakkiravva. Defendant No.1 also furnished a genealogy along