The existence of a registered partition deed effectively negates claims of joint family status and prior undivided ownership.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. This matter is listed for admission and I have heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is that defendant No.1 is his mother and one late Gangadharappa @ T. Gangadhara Rao was his father and defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are his brothers and defendant No.5 is his sister. Defendant Nos.6 and defendant No.11 is his sister-in-law and defendant Nos.7 and 9 are the children of defendant No.6 and late Ranganath. Defendant Nos.12 to 15 are the children of defendant No.11 and late Gopala T. The defendant Nos.10, 16, 17 are his cousin brothers and defendant Nos.18 and 19 are his cousin sisters. The plaintiff and defendants are related through blood and they belong to Hindu Undivided Joint Family. It is contented that suit schedule property stands in the name of father of defendant Nos.10, 16 to 19 and father-in-law of defendant Nos.6 and 11 and grandfather of defendant Nos.7 to 9, 12 to 15. It is contented that suit schedule property is an ancestral property which belongs to both plaintiff and defendants. The plaintiff's grandfather Govinddappa, S/o. Shatojappa and 4 children namely, Basappa, father of defendant Nos.10, 16 to 19, Tulajappa @ Chinnappa, Shatojappa and Gangadharappa, father of plaintiff. As of now, the suit schedule property is standing in the name of Basappa, father of defendant Nos.10, 16 to 19. It is further submitted that the second son Tulajappa @ Chinnappa got his share during the year 1950 and 3^rd son Shatojappa relinquished his share in the joint family property through the relinquishment deed dated 22.06.1942. Since these second and third sons have got their share and relinquished the right over the suit property, they and their legal representatives are not arrayed as party to the suit.

4. It is contended that grandfather of plaintiff had purchased the property on 05.04.1942 from its previous vendor Rangadol Shatoji Rao, S/o. Shatojappa for valuable consideration of Rs.200/- in the name of his elder son T. Basappa and thereafter, sale deed got registered before the Sub-registrar, Sagar. He purchased a vacant site measuring about 22.5 feet width x Government drainage to Kambli Mutt Hittalu. After that, Khatha was transferred from Valagada Pakirappa to T.Basappa. From then, till date, the khatha of the property stood in the name of T. Basappa. It is further contended that after purchasing the suit schedule property, grandfather of the plaintiff got constructed 3 ankana, 2 portion Mangalore tiled house in the vacant site. To meet the family crisis, they pledged the suit property to one Gojanur Channappa Shetty and brothers for consideration amount of Rs.1,300/- by executing simple mortgage deed in favour of him along with other brothers and the said document was duly registered before the Sub-registrar, Sagar under S.R.No.136/1944-45 dated 22.08.1944 which was registered on 30.08.1944. Since, the rate of interest was very much higher than other society, the grandfather of the plaintiff and his father and uncle mortgaged the suit schedule property to Ganapathy Urban Co-operative Society, Sagar Branch and obtained a loan of Rs.2,500/-. Thereafter, executed a mortgage deed in favour of Ganapathy Urban Co-operative Society during the year 1944 and subsequently got cancelled the earlier mortgage deed dated 22.08.1944. It is also contented that in the year 1950 there was no oral partition between the family members. Hence, plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition in