This is a second appeal by the plaintiffs.

Smt.Parvatevva wife of Hanumappa Poojari, Basappa

son of Sanna Hanumappa and Yallamma instituted the suit

seeking for partition against Amarappa son of Ningappa

Poojari and others.

They stated that one Ningappa Poojari had six

children namely Amarappa (D1), Hanumappa (husband of

plaintiff No.1), Gangamma, Ningamma, Sanna Hanumappa

(the father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and Sangappa).

It was stated that out of the 5 children except

Hanumappa i.e., defendant No.1 the others were not alive

- 4 -

and Ningappa and his first wife were also not alive. It was

stated that the suit properties were the joint family

properties and they were in joint possession of the suit

property. It was stated since difference arose between

family members and a demand for partition was made and

the same was refused and hence the suit was filed.

The suit was initially filed only against Amarappa. He

entered appearance and contested the suit. He denied the

contention that all the legal heirs were not on record and

in view of this contention and the other legal heirs namely

defendant Nos.2 to 5 were impleaded. Defendant Nos.2 to

4 though served remained absent and were hence placed

ex-party. Defendant No.5 entered appearance but did not

file written statement.

Defendant No.1 denied the assertion that the

plaintiffs and he were the owners in possessions of the suit

property. He stated that he and his brothers had orally

partitioned his joint family properties about 50 years ago

and in the said partition Sy.16 had fallen to the share of

- 5 -

defendant No.1-Hanumappa Poojari (husband of plaintiff

No.1) and to Sangappa (father of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3).

He stated that all three were in possession but due to

family necessities, Sanna Hanumappa the husband of

plaintiff No.1 and Sangappa the father of plaintiff Nos.2

and 3 sold their respective shares in Sy.No.16 under a

registered sale deed and ever since he was in possession.

He also stated that he had purchased item No.1 from one

Rajasab under the registered sale deed in the year 1966

and the said land was a Seth Sandi inam Land which had

been granted to Rajasab and was also re-granted to him in

the year 1982 and the Tahsildar had regularized the sale

deed in his favour. He therefore contended that all the suit

properties belonged to him and they were not joint family

properties. It was also stated that an earlier suit filed by

the plaintiff in O.S.No.19/2002 was dismissed after he

filed the written statement.

The Trial Court on consideration of the evidence

adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the

- 6 -

plaintiffs had failed to establish that the suit properties

were ancestral properties. It also came to the conclusion

that it had been established that there was a partition

about 50 years ago between defendant No.1 and his

brothers in respect of Sy.No.16 of the suit property and

after the said partition the husband of plaintiff and father

of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 had sold Sy.No.16 in his favour

under the registered sale deed. It also held that item

No.16 i.e., Sy.No.32 was his self-acquired property and

therefore the claim for partition was untenable. In coming

to this conclusion, the Trial Court relied upon three sale

deed Exs.D1 to D3 which were dated 15.01.1966,

19.04.1966 and 09.09.1963 and also the RTC extracts for

the subsequent period to come to the conclusion that

Sy.No.16 had in fact been partitioned was divided and in

the said partition the property was divided and Sy.No.16

was divided amongst three brothers. It was also noticed

that after the said partition the two brothers had conveyed

their share in favour of defendant No.1 and defendant

No.1 purchased item No.1 only under independent sale

- 7 -

deed thereafter. The Trial Court accordingly dismissed the

suit.

In appeal, the Appellate Court after re-appreciation

of the evidence concurred with the finding of the Trial

Court and proceeded to dismiss the appeal.

As against these conc