JUDGMENT

The captioned second appeal is filed by the defendant No.1 questioning the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court wherein the Appellate Court has decreed the suit in entirety and share is granted to the plaintiff in all the properties.

2. For the sake of brevity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the Court below.

3. The family tree of the parties is as follows:

ªÀÄĤCAf£À¥Àà (78 ªÀµÀð)

|

--------------------------------------------------------------

| |

1. £ÀAdªÀÄä (1£Éà ºÉAqÀw ¥sÀªÀw) 2. ªÀÄĤ£ÀAdªÀÄä (2£Éà ºÉAqÀw ¥sÀªÀw)

|

PÀȵÀÚ¥Àà (ªÀÄUÀ 55 ªÀµÀð)

ªÀÄĤAiÀĪÀÄä (ºÉAqÀw 50 ªÀµÀð) C±ÀéxÀªÀÄä (ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 45 ªÀµÀð)

|

(ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ DV UÀAqÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄvÁÛgÉ)

------------------------------------------------------------ | | | | |

1.

Dgï.PÉ.£ÀAdÄAqÉÃUËqÀ 2. C±ÀévÀÜUËqÀ 3. ªÀÄÆwð 4. ªÀÄAdļÀ 5. C£ÀAzÀªÀÄä (ªÀÄUÀ 28 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀÄUÀ 23 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀÄUÀ 18 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 22 ªÀµÀð) (ªÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ 20 ªÀµÀð)

4. The original plaintiff Muni Anjanappa who is the father of defendant No.1 filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.29/2006. The original plaintiff Muni Anjanappa claimed that suit schedule properties were acquired through joint family funds. It was contended that original plaintiff Muni Anjanappa on account of old age was not in a position to manage the affairs of the family and therefore, defendant No.1 being the eldest son was allowed to manage the affairs of the joint family as Kartha of the family. Therefore, the original plaintiff Muni Anjanappa contended that all the properties acquired in the name of defendant No.1 were by utilizing joint family corpus and therefore, the original plaintiff filed a suit for partition against the sons and claimed share in all the properties.

5. Pending suit, the original plaintiff Muni Anjanappa died and his daughter who was originally arrayed as defendant No.5 got transposed as plaintiff. The original plaintiff instituted the present suit by specifically alleging that defendant No.1 is acting adversely to the interest of the plaintiff and therefore, the present suit came to be filed.

6. The defendant No.1, on receipt of summons, tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint. However, the defendant No.1 admitted the relationship between himself with other defendants and original plaintiff Muni Anjanappa. However, the allegation that all suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties was stoutly denied by the defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 specifically contended that except item No.9 of schedule ‘A’ property, all other properties are self acquired properties and therefore, are not available for partition. The defendant No.1 has furnished all the details and has disclosed the source of acquisition in the written statement.

7. It was also specifically averred in the written statement that item Nos.a, b, m, n, o as well as c, d and e of schedule ‘B’ properties are his self acquired properties. The defendant No.1 has further claimed that item Nos.1 and 12 were acquired by him in a compromise decree passed in O.S.No.61/1988 while he acquired right and title in item Nos.2 and 6 by way of adverse possession. He further contended that he acquired absolute right over item Nos.3 and 5 under registered gift deed executed by his uncle. Further, he contended that item Nos.4 and 10 were purchased by him through registered sale deed. While defendants further pleaded that item Nos.7 and 11 do not belong to joint family but, however, his name was mutated to the revenue records. Insofar as item No.8 is concerned, he contended that it originally belonged to Dodda Kempanna and after the death of his uncle, defendant No.1’s name was mutated to the revenue records. The defendant No.1, however, admitted that item No.9 is the joint family property.

8. The plaintiff i.e., the daughter of Muni Anjanappa to substantiate the claim of original plaintiff let in oral evidence.

She examined herself as PW.1 and one indepen