The court affirmed that partition shares from ancestral property remain joint family property for descendants, entitling them to assert claims over the inherited property.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

This appeal by defendant No.2 in OS No.243/2010 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.04.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Belagavi (for short, ‘the Trial Court’), whereby the said suit filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2/plaintiffs against the appellant, respondent Nos.3 and 4, who are the defendant Nos.2, 1 and 3 respectively before the Trial Court, for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs’ alleged 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule immovable property, was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective ranks before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs are the sons of defendant No.1- Mahaveer and defendant Nos.2 and 3 are purchasers of the suit schedule immovable property from defendant No.1, vide registered sale deeds dated 24.08.2006 and 16.08.2007. The plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit inter alia contending that in the year 1951 there was a partition between the grandfather of the plaintiffs by name Kugappa and his brother Parisappa, in which the total extent of land bearing RS No.84/1 measuring 8 acres 30 guntas was equally divided between the aforesaid Kugappa and Parisappa by allotting southern half(½) portion measuring 4 acres 15 guntas in favour of Kugappa and northern half(½)portion measuring 4 acres 15 guntas in favour of Parisappa. It is alleged that Kugappa was married to one Ratnawwa and they had three sons namely, Ashok, Mahaveer and Ajit. The plaintiffs are the children of aforesaid Mahaveer-defendant No.1, the second son of Kugappa referred to supra.

4. The plaintiffs alleged that after the demise of Kugappa, his widow Ratnawwa and three sons i.e. Ashok, Mahaveer and Ajit entered into a registered partition deed dated 30.10.1999, whereby, all the joint family properties, including the aforesaid land bearing R.S.No.84/1 measuring 4 acres 15 guntas was divided and partitioned between the said persons. It is alleged that, under the aforesaid registered partition deed dated 30.10.1999, the suit schedule ‘A’ property was allotted to the share of defendant No.1- Mahaveer, as a result of which, the suit schedule ‘A’ property measuring 1 acre 18 guntas in R.S.No.84/1 became ancestral property in the hands of defendant No.1-Mahaveer, qua his children, the plaintiffs herein, and the same was the ancestral property insofar as the plaintiffs were concerned. It was alleged that the suit schedule property was the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1. Therefore, the defendant No.1 was not entitled to alienate the entire extent of suit schedule property in favour of any third party including the defendants No.2 and 3. As a result, the registered Sale Deeds dated 24.08.2006 and 16.08.2007 executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3, are not binding upon the plaintiffs 2/3^rd share (1/3^rd + 1/3^rd share each) in the suit schedule ‘A’ property. Accordingly, the plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit seeking partition and separate possession of their legitimate 1/3^rd shares each in the suit schedule ‘A’ property. They also sought a declaration that the Sale Deed dated 24.08.2006, executed by the defendant No.1-Mahaveer in favour of defendant No.2, is not binding upon their share in the suit schedule property.

5. It is a matter of record and an undisputed fact that a portion of suit schedule ‘A’ property was sold by the defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 through a registered Sale Deed dated 16.08.2007. Subsequently, the defendant No.3 amicably settled the dispute with the plaintiffs by filing a compromise petition dated 02.09.2014. The said compromise was accepted by the Trial Court. As a result, the plaintiffs’ suit was decreed in their favour only as against the defendant Nos.1 and 2.

6. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, the appellant/defenda