A trial court must provide reasoned findings on each issue under Order XX Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, ensuring clarity and just adjudication in partition suits.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by defendant No.4 challenging the judgment and preliminary decree dated 06.12.2018 passed in O.S. No.180 of 2015 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani (for short ‘the Trial Court’).

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the Trial Court. The appellant was defendant No.4 and respondents No.1 and 2 were the plaintiffs and other respondents were defendants No.1 to 3.

3. Brief facts leading raise to the filing of this appeal are as follow.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession regarding the suit schedule property. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Sri. Mallappa Bapu Jakkappanavar was the original propositus. He had four children, viz., defendants No.1 to 3 are the daughters and the husband of plaintiff No.1 by name Basappa is the son.

5. The said Basappa died on 04/08/2004 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. The original propositus died on 29.09.2012. It is stated that on 07/08/2003 the husband of plaintiff no. 1, basappa and the mother of basappa, i.e., housavva, executed a sale deed in favour of defendant no.4 without any sale consideration and the same is not supported by any family or legal necessity and for the benefit of the family. it is contended that the plaintiffs are not parties to the same and hence, the said sale deed is not binding on them. it is contended that no partition was effected between the members of the joint family and the plaintiffs are entitled to a 1/4^th legitimate share in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit.

6. Defendant No.1 appeared through the counsel and filed a written statement admitting the averments made in the plaint and prays to decree the suit. It is contended that defendants No.1 to 3 never relinquished their share in favour of Basappa. Hence, prays to allot a legitimate share to defendants No.1 to 3.

7. Defendant No.4 filed a written statement contending that after the death of the original propositus of the family, defendants no.1 to 3 orally relinquished their rights over the suit property in favour of their brother, Basappa and their mother, Housavva and on 7/8/2003, they have executed a sale deed in favour of defendant no.4 for value, regarding the suit schedule property. Thus, he is a bona fide purchaser of the suit property for value without notice. Hence, prays to dismiss the suit.

8. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

ISSUES

1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they themselves and the Defendants No.1 to 3 are joint family members and the suit schedule property is joint family property?

2) Whether the Plaintiffs proves that till today there was no partition in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds and the plaintiffs are having 1/4th share in the suit schedule property?

3) Whether the Defendant no.4 proves that he is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration in respect of suit schedule property?

4) Whether the defendant no.4 proves that the suit filed by the plaintiffs without proper cause of action?

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs as sought for?

6) What Order or Decree?

9. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, examined plaintiff No.1 as PW-1 and marked 14 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-14.

10. In rebuttal, defendant No.4 was examined as DW-1, defendant No.1, examined herself as DW-3 and examined one witness as DW-2 and marked 7 documents as Exhibits D-1 to D-7.

11. The Trial Court after reco