The court affirmed that the recitals in registered sale deeds are pivotal evidence, prohibiting oral contradictions under Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, thereby establishing the ancestral nature of disputed properties.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2013 passed in R.A. No.82 of 2010 by the learned Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Kanakapura, Ramanagara District.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the Trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs, and the respondents were the defendants.

3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties were acquired by late Melegowda by purchasing the same in the name of his wife Smt.Cheluvamma i.e., defendant No.1. It is the case of the plaintiffs that defendant Nos.2, 3 and the plaintiffs are the children of defendant No.1, and defendant No.4 is the son of defendant No.2; and the suit properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The said Melegowda had the ancestral properties i.e., property bearing Survey No.133/6 measuring 8½ guntas, Survey No.133/9 measuring 1½ guntas and Survey No.134/3 measuring 13 guntas and a house situated at Hallimaranahalli village measuring 5 ankanas of country tiled house including angala and hittalu. The father of the plaintiffs and the defendants sold the ancestral properties on 04.05.1949 with an intention to purchase the properties at Yerenahalli village, Kanakapura Taluk.

5. After selling the said ancestral properties, the suit schedule properties have been purchased in the name of their mother Smt.Chaluvamma. The said properties have to be construed as ancestral properties of the parties to the suit. It is also contended that the plaintiffs got appointed in the Government job, hence they were residing in different places. The defendants were residing at Mavathoor village, Kanakapura taluk. Taking advantage of the same, defendant No.2 got manipulated the documents and tried to change the khata in the name of his son i.e., defendant No. 4. The plaintiffs and the defendants are the members of the Hindu Undivided Family and no partition is effected between them. It is contended that the plaintiffs requested the defendants to effect a partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. It is also contended that defendant No.2 had no right to execute a gift deed in favour of defendant No. 4. Hence, on these grounds, prays to decree the suit.

6. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint, and it is contended that the suit is not maintainable. The father of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 and husband of defendant No.1 Melegowda was a drunkard and has developed all sorts of bad habits, as such, to meet his bad vices, he sold all his joint family properties situated at Hallimaranahalli village on 04.05.1949 in favour of different persons, and he has utilised the said sale consideration for his personal benefits and not for the benefit of the family. It is contended that the defendants have purchased suit item Nos.1, 2 and 4 and the said suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of the defendants. It is stated that said self-acquired properties were purchased from 1949 to 1963. The said properties are their self-acquired properties and the plaintiffs have no right to claim their share in item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that defendant No.1 was cultivating