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)

5

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

6

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 8A9 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

7

schedule 8B9 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.19s 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