1. The captioned second appeal is filed by unsuccessful

plaintiffs questioning the concurrent findings of the Courts

below, wherein plaintiff's suit for partition and separate

possession is dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred as they

are ranked before the Trial Court.

3. Family tree of the family is as under:-

Ugrappa

Venkatamma

Krishnappa H.V.Narayanaswamy Akkalappa

Laxmidevamma (late)

Hemavathi Balaji Narasimha Murthy

4. The plaintiffs have filed the present suit against their

father, i.e., defendant No.1, by contending that the suit

schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties

- 4 -

and that defendant No.1 is the manager of the family.

Plaintiffs claimed that Sy.No.61/3 was a tenanted land,

and their grand father, Ugrappa, after the coming into

force of the Land Reforms Act, filed Form No. 7, and the

Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in respect of item

No.1 bearing Sy.No.61/3 vide order dated 26.02.1981.

Therefore, plaintiff contended that these properties are

joint family ancestral properties and defendant No.1 had

no authority to alienate the suit schedule properties in

favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. The present suit is filed

alleging that the alienations made by defendant No.1 are

not binding on the plaintiffs, and hence the present suit for

partition.

5. Defendant Nos.2 and 3, filed written statement and

admitted that defendant No.1 is the manager of the

plaintiff's family. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 who are the

purchasers, claimed that defendant No.1 has alienated the

suit lands for family necessity. Defendant Nos.2 and 3

claimed that these alienations were made with the consent

- 5 -

of the plaintiffs; therefore, defendant Nos.2 and 3 claimed

that they are bonafide purchasers and, hence, sought for

dismissal of the suit.

6. Plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 to substantiate

their respective claims, have let in oral and documentary

evidence.

7. The Trial Court, referring to several categorical

admissions elicited in plaintiff's cross examination, held

that the materials on record indicate that these two suit

lands are self-acquired properties of defendant No.1. This

fact is successfully elicited in cross-examination of the

plaintiffs. Plaintiff No. 1 has admitted in unequivocal terms

that suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties

of her father, i.e., defendant No.1. The defendants have

also succeeded in eliciting in cross examination that

defendant No.1, even now is managing the family affairs

and it is defendant No.1 who is bearing all the expenses of

the family. The defendants have also succeeded in eliciting

- 6 -

that, for compelling reasons and for family necessity,

defendant No.1 had to alienate these suit schedule

properties. In the light of the above-mentioned admissions

elicited in cross examination, coupled with the recitals

found in the alienations made by defendant No.1, the Trial

Court was of the view that defendant No.1 has sold the

suit lands for family necessity. The Trial Court also found

that defendant No.1 had purchased item No.2 from one

Narayanaswamy under a registered sale deed, vide Ex.D.1

and P.W.1 has further admitted that defendant No.1 has

alienated the suit schedule properties to defendant No.2

on account of family necessity. Referring to these

significant details, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the

suit.

8. Plaintiffs, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree

of the Trial Court, preferred an appeal before the appellate

Court. The Appellate Court, being the final fact-finding

authority, has independently assessed the evidence on

record. The Appellate Court, while referring to Exs.P.4, 6

- 7 -

to 13 found that plaintiff's grand father, Ugrappa has

purchased one of the suit lands in the name of defendant

No.1. Referring to Ex.P.4, it was also found that the Land

Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the

plaintiff's g