JUDGMENT

The present appeal is filed by One Basamma-the mother of the present appellant seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule properties consisting of 25 items contending inter-alia that the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 constituted Hindu Undivided Joint Family and governed by Mitakshara School of Law as the suit schedule properties belonged to the ancestors of the plaintiffs. That the plaintiff and defendants are the legal representatives of one Madhure Siddappa, after his demise plaintiff and defendants Nos.1 and 2 succeeded to the suit schedule properties and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. That the plaintiff being entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit properties requested defendant Nos.1 and 2 who are her brother and sister respectively for partition, who declined to partition the properties. It is further contended that the defendant No.1 without any exclusive right, title and interest had alienated item Nos.16, 17, 20, 21 and 22 of the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 7 under different deeds of sale and that the said sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff had caused issue of notice and same did not find any favorable response, plaintiff filed a suit for partition claiming 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties.

2. In response to the summons defendant Nos.1 to 7 appeared, defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the plaint averments. It is contended that the suit schedule properties were being enjoyed by one Madhure Siddappa along with one Govindappa and that same was partitioned amongst the defendant No.1 and his children and suit in a O.S.No.59/2002 had also been filed against the plaintiff which was decreed and defendant No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties as absolute owner thereof. That the defendant No.1 has sold item Nos.16, 17, 20, 21 and 22 of the suit schedule properties under different deeds of sale in favour of defendant Nos.5 to 7 for family and legal necessity and the said parties are in possession of the properties. That the suit filed by the plaintiff is only to harass the defendants without there being entitled for any share, right, title and interest.

3. Considering the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the issues and recorded the evidence. After appreciating the pleadings and oral and material evidence, the Trial Court partially decreed the suit by holding that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/3rd share in suit item Nos.1 to 15, 23 to 25 and 1 acre of land in item No.20 of the suit schedule properties by judgment and decree dated 06.06.2011.

4. Being aggrieved by the same defendant No.1 preferred Regular Appeal in R.A.No.48/2011 before the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chitradurga(herein after 'the First Appellate Court') . The First Appellate Court by the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2015 allowed the said appeal by modifying the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, whereby it declared the plaintiff being entitled for 1/6th share in item Nos.1 to 15, 23 to 25 and 1 acre of land in item No.20 of the suit schedule properties. Being aggrieved by the same plaintiff is before this Court.

5. This appeal is admitted to consider the following substantial question of law:

Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Vineetha Sharma Vs Rakesh Sharma and Others reported in (2020) 9 SCC 1 in modifying the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court reducing the share of the plaintiff from 1/3rd to 1/6th?

6. At the request and consent of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as counsel for the respondent matter is taken up for final disposal today.

7. Sri. B.M. Siddappa, learned counsel for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of the appeal submits that, the First Appellate Court grossly e