A partition among heirs was established, and the properties in question were determined to be self-acquired, nullifying the plaintiffs' claims of joint family property.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court that one Honnappa is the original propositus of the family. He had four sons Lingappa, Subbarayappa, Chikkanna and Anjinappa. The parties to the suit belongs to the branch of Sri.Lingappa and details are given with regard to the suit filed among the children of only the first son Lingappa. It is their case that original propositus Honnappa died intestate and after his death, the four sons got divided the property in Sy.No.125/1 of Rajaghatta village. In the said partition, 31 guntas of land was allotted to Sri.Lingappa, 23 guntas of land to Subbarayappa, 30 guntas of land to Chikkanna and 28 guntas of land to Anjinappa. There was a partition among themselves and the same was re-numbered as 125/1A, 125/1B, 125/1C and 125/1D respectively.

3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that R.L.Puttana was managing the joint family properties when Lingappa fell sick and became bed ridden at an early age and he was the Kartha of the family and R.L.Puttanna was cultivating the entire extent of 2 acres 22 guntas of land. The entire property was in possession and cultivation of joint family of Sri.Lingappa. After the death of Lingappa, R.L.Puttanna continued to manage the properties of the joint family. There was no any partition and R.L.Puttanna also became the Chairman of the village panchayat of Rajaghatta village. He had earned reputation and status. The plaintiff No.1 and his brothers used to physically cultivate the landed properties of the joint family and Puttanna used to manage the accounts and collect the money on behalf of the joint family and also the joint family was running a Flour Mill and Sarvamangala wife of Puttanna used to manage the Flour Mill business and used to collect the income from Flour Mill business. The plaint ’B’ schedule property originally belongs to one Channappa and his son Sri.Chikkananjappa residents of Dasagondanahalli village. They sold the plaint ‘B’ schedule property to R.L.Puttanna under a registered sale deed in the year 1960 and out of the income of the ‘A’ schedule properties, Puttanna purchased the ‘B’ schedule property in the year 1960. The sale deed was executed in the name of Puttanna as he was the Kartha of the joint family. The joint family had ancestral property measuring 1 acre 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.116/4 of Rajaghatta village and Puttanna sold the said land on behalf of the joint family in favour of Chikkananjappa on 03.05.1960. The plaint ‘B’ schedule property was mortgaged in favour of Haalu Uthpadakara Sangh, Rajaghatta on several occasions by the plaintiff No.1, Sri.R.L.Shivarudraiah and Sri.R.L.Puttanna. The plaint ‘B’ schedule property was never treated as self-acquired property of Sri.R.L.Puttanna. The plaintiff No.1 had raised loan from the Society by mortgaging the title deeds of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property on behalf of the joint family. There was no partition between the members of the joint family and Puttanna died in the year 1995. Joint family properties are being taken care of by the defendants Nos.1 and 2 who are the sons of Sri.Puttanna. The plaintiffs have a right to share in the suit schedule properties. Inspite of demand was made, they have not partitioned the property and hence filed the suit. The defend