The court reaffirmed that properties allotted in a partition retain ancestral status, entitling descendants with rights despite claims of separate property post-partition.

ORDER :

E.S. INDIRESH, J.

This appeal is preferred by plaintiffs, challenging the judgment and decree dated 18^th April, 2017 passed in Regular Appeal No.38 of 2012 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Mysuru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'First Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 07^th December, 2011 passed in Original Suit No.231 of 2005 on the file of the Principal Judge, Small Causes and Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Trial Court'), wherein the suit of the plaintiffs came to be dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the children of the defendant No.1 and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendant No.1. It is stated that the suit schedule properties belonged one Boraiah, grandfather of plaintiffs and same was allotted to the father of the plaintiffs i.e., defendant No.1 in a family partition executed on 04^th May, 1973 (Exhibit P14). It is also stated that the defendant No.1 had executed the General Power of Attorney in favour of one Gundu Venkatesh Kumar H.K. and the item No.1 of suit schedule properties was sold in favour of the defendant No.2 as per the registered Sale deed dated 12^th December, 1995 (Exhibit P15) through the General Power of Attorney. Hence, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 constitute joint family and as such, plaintiffs filed Original Suit No.231 of 2005 before the Trial Court, seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule properties.

4. Upon service of summons, defendants entered appearance, however, the defendant No.1 has not contested the matter by filing the written statement.

5. The defendant No.2 filed detailed written statement denying the averments made in the plaint. It is the specific case of the defendant No.2 that, he had purchased the item No.1 of the suit schedule properties as per the registered Sale Deed dated 12^th December, 1995 and being a bona fide purchaser of the land, he sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. The Trial Court, based on pleadings on record, formulated the issues for its consideration.

7. In order to establish their case, plaintiffs examined two witness and PW1 and PW2 and marked 15 documents as Exhibits P1 to P15. On the other hand, defendant No.2 himself had examined as DW1 and got marked 124 documents as Exhibits D1 to D124.

8. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 07^th December, 2011, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiffs preferred Regular Appeal No.38 of 2012 before the First Appellate Court and the said appeal was contested by the defendant No.2. It is also forthcoming from the records that the defendant No.1-Shivanna died during the pendency of the proceedings and accordingly, wife of the deceased Shivanna was brought on record. The First Appellate Court, after re- appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 18^th April, 2017, dismissed the appeal and consequently, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court.

Hence, plaintiffs preferred this appeal

9. This Court, by order dated 03^rd February, 2020 admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial question of law:

"Whether the Trial Court and the Appellate Court are justified in holding that the suit property became the separate property of the father of the plaintiffs, merely because it was allotted to him in