This appeal is of the year 2007 and suit is of the

year 1995. Therefore, by taking cognizance of the

subsequent events, which are placed on record by the

plaintiffs, this Court is of the view that this appeal has

to be heard finally and with the consent of both

parties, this appeal is taken for final hearing.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. This captioned Regular First Appeal is filed by

the unsuccessful defendant Nos.1 to 3 questioning the

judgment and decree of the Trial Court in decreeing

the suit filed by the plaintiffs awarding half share in

the suit schedule properties.

4

4. The family tree of the parties is as follows;

Kudubale Nagappa (1945)

|

Smt.Nagamma (wife)

|

____________________________________

|

|

|

Veerappa

Rangappa Munikrishnappa

|

|

Smt.Mumimallamma Smt.Muniyamma

(wife) (D.1) (wife) (P.1)

|

|

Murali (D.5)

Smt.Susheela (P.2)

|

|____________________________

| | |

Ashwathnarayana Nagaraj Purushothama

(D.2) (D.3) (D.4)

5. The facts leading to the case are as under;

The plaintiffs are representing the branch of

Rangappa. The plaintiffs claimed that they constitute

Joint Hindu Undivided family along with defendants

and that they are in joint possession and enjoyment

over the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs further

contended that there was a family partition and in the

5

said partition, Kadubale Nagappa, Veerappa and

Rangappa were jointly allotted present suit schedule

properties, whereas the third son of propositor

Kudubale Nagappa namely Munikrishnappa separated

from the joint family by taking his legitimate share.

Therefore, the plaintiffs claimed that it is only

Veerappa and Rangappa's branch who continued to be

the joint family members and they are in joint

possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule

properties and therefore, claimed their legitimate

share in the suit schedule properties.

6. On receipt of summons, the defendants

contested the proceedings by filing written statement.

Defendant No.2 stoutly denied the entire averments

made in the plaint and took a specific contention that

there is already a severance in the family pursuant to

a registered partition deed effected on 09/12/1959

between Veerappa and plaintiffs. It is also contended

6

that their mother Nagamma and Munikrishnappa were

also parties to the registered partition deed and

therefore, contended that the present suit for partition

is not at all maintainable.

7. Based on rival contentions, the Trial Court

formulated the following issues.

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that

the parties to the suit constitute

joint Hindu Undivided family?

2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that

the suit schedule property is the

joint

family

property

of

the

parties to the suit?

3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that

they are entitled for half share in

the suit schedule property and

separate possession of the same

by metes and bounds?

7

4. Whether the plaintiffs prove that

they

are

entitled

for

mesne

profits?

5. Whether the defendants prove

that the partition was effected

under a registered partition dated

09.12.1959 between Veerappa on

the

one

part,

legal

representatives of Rangappa on

the second part, Nagamma w/o

late Kudubale Nagappa on the

third part and Munikrishnappa on

the fourth part?

6. Whether the defendants prove

that the plaintiffs are not entitled

for any share in the suit schedule

property?

7. Whether the defendants prove

that they educated and performed

the

marriages

of

he

second

plaintiff and spent money for the

8

marriage and are maintaining the

first plaintiff?

8. Whether the suit is barred by law

of limitation?

9. Whether the defendants prove

that they have perfected their

title

over

the

suit

schedule

property by adverse possession?

10. To

what

reliefs

are

parties

entitled?

11.