The plaintiffs, as legal heirs, are entitled to a share in inherited property, and the suit was not barred by limitation as it was filed within 10 years of the sale.

This appeal is filed by the defendant No.3 aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 28.02.2020 passed in O.S.No.77/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Gudibande (hereinafter 'the Trial Court') which is confirmed by the judgment and order dated 01.10.2022 passed in R.A.No.45/2020 on the file of Prl. Judge, Family Court at Chikkaballapura (hereinafter 'the First Appellate Court').

2. The above suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for the relief of partition and separate possession, originally in respect of only one item of property i.e., Sy.No.6/1 situated at Renumakalahalli Village, Mandikal Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk against defendant Nos.1 to 3. During the pendency of the suit, item Nos.2 to 6 were included and defendant Nos.4 Noor Jan was also subsequently impleaded.

3. The case of the plaintiffs is that; (a). That land in Sy.No.6/1 measuring 2 acre 21 guntas, Sy.No.38 measuring 14 guntas, Sy.No.39/6 measuring 21 guntas, and Sy.No.39/7 totally measuring 31 guntas out of which 15 ½ quntas, house property bearing H.L.No.22, to an extent of East to West 11+15 feet and North to South 38+19 feet and another house property bearing H.L.No.29 to an extent of East to West 30 feet and North to South 57 feet situated at Renumakalahalli Village, Mandikal Hobli, Chickballapur Taluk originally belonged to Abdul Raheem Sab.

(b). That the said Abdul Raheem Sab passed away leaving behind his four children namely (1). Saifulla (defendant No. 1), (2). Shafiulla (defendant No.2), (3). Rasheeda Begum and (4). Mahaboob Bi, who are plaintiff No.1 and 2 respectively. That upon the demise of said Abdul Raheem Sab, plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and 2 being his legal heirs became entitled to the properties inheriting the same as tenants-in-common. The Katha in respect to the suit schedule properties had been mutated in name of defendant No.1 upon death of their father. That since defendant No.1 and 2 were acting detriment to the interest of the plaintiffs, they approached defendant Nos.1 and 2 seeking their share in the suit properties. That defendant No.3 is utter stranger to the suit schedule properties, but he claimed to have purchased the item No.1 of the suit property from the defendant No.1. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition.

4. In response to the suit summons, the defendant No.1 to 3 appeared through their counsel. The defendant No.3 filed his written statement denying the plaint averments and contended that he had purchased the suit item No.1 from defendant No.1 under registered deed of sale dated 28.6.2004 for valuable consideration. Since the date of purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule item No. 1. It is further contended that, father of the defendant No.1 had purchased suit item No.1 from one Byanna under registered sale deed dated 29.3.1947. Thereafter the defendant Nos.1 and 2 were residing in joint family and they have partitioned the properties orally. The defendant No.2 had executed release deed in favour of defendant No.1 and his father released from the joint family by redeeming his right with respect to Sy.No.39/6 to an extent of 1 acre 38 guntas in Sy.No.39/7 measuring 28 guntas; Sy.No.38 measuring 13 guntas of Renumakalahalli Village and in Sy.No.68/1 measuring 1 acre 1 guntas of Bommaganahalli village and released from joint family by receiving amount of Rs.4,000/-. It is further contended that, defendant No.1 was the absolute owner of the suit item No.1 and he had mortgaged the same in favour of one M.Sushmitha wife of Dr.G.Narayanaswamy by availing loan of Rs.30.000/- he redeem the mortgage. Due to financial crisis, the defendant No.1 sold suit item No. 1 in favour of this defendant No.3 for legal necessity. It is further pleaded that, father of defendant No.1 passed away about 20 years back, since then defendant No.1 alone was enjoying suit item No.1. The suit is barred by limitation, as suit was not filed within 12 years from the date of deat