A prior partition established the ownership of properties among family members, and plaintiffs failed to prove their claims for further partition as required.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri G V Narasimhamurthy, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S G Lokesh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7.

2. The unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants who sued for partition in OS No.9/2016 which came to be dismissed and confirmed in RA No.173 of 2019.

3. Facts in nutshell for the disposal of the present appeal are as under:

3.1 In respect of the following immovable properties, a suit for partition and separate possession was filed by the plaintiffs contending that common prepositus by name Sanjeevappa had six children. One among them is Raghunath, who is the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3. Defendant Nos.2, 3, 6, 7 and Padmavathi are other children of Sanjeevappa. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the children of Padmavathi, daughter of Sanjeevappa.

3.2 The suit schedule properties are joint family properties and no partition has taken place in respect of the suit properties.

3.3 Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to 7 appeared through their respective advocates and it is only defendant Nos.3 to 7 who have filed written statement and defendant Nos.1 and 2 did not file any written statement.

4. In the written statement filed by defendant Nos.3 to 7, they have taken a specific contention that there was a family partition on 02.12.2002 and properties were divided and shares were allotted to the plaintiffs. In such partition, 'B' suit schedule property fell to the share of plaintiffs and after the partition, the plaintiffs are residing separately as divided members of the family and hence, the suit is not maintainable.

5. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned Trial Judge raised necessary issues and after noting the fact that defendant Nos.3 to 7 were successful in establishing the partition that took place on 02.12.2002 and revenue entries were mutated pursuant to such earlier partition, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs.

6. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the District Court in Chikkaballapura in RA No.173 of 2019.

7. Learned Judge at First Appellate Court after securing the records, re-appreciated the materials evidence placed on record and dismissed the appeal inter alia holding in paragraphs 23 to 25 as under:

"23. The learned advocate appearing for the appellants relies upon the judgment reported in 1966 AIR 411 in betweer Achutan Nair V/so Chinnamu Amma and others argues that the members of the joint family are entitled for share in the join family. It is for the person who asserts that the said properties are his self acquired property, to prove the same. On perusal of the said judgment it can be seen that their lordships have held that the it is for the person who asserts that any property is his self acquired property to prove that the said property is his self acquired property, otherwise the joint family members are entitled for share in the said properties. But in this case there is no such assertion of either of the parties that they are owners of the suit schedule properties and they are self acquired properties. Therefore, this ruling is not applicable to this case on hand.

24. It is for the plaintiffs to prove that the suit schedule properties belongs to Sanjeevappa and it was intentionally not included in the earlier partition dated 02.12.2002 and now they are entitled for share in the suit schedule properties. But the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit schedule property belongs to Sanjeevappa and they were intentionally left out in the registered partition deed dated 02.12.2002. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the suit schedule properties.

25. The learned advocate appearing f