The captioned Regular First Appeal is filed by the

unsuccessful defendants who are questioning the judgment

and decree of the Court below passed in O.S.No.819/2000

wherein the suit filed by the plaintiffs is decreed granting 1/5^th

share each in the suit schedule property.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3.

The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking declaration that each of

the plaintiffs have got 1/5^th share in the suit schedule property

and therefore, claimed partition by metes and bounds. The

plaintiffs claim that late Gunda Bhaktha Revanna is the father

5

of plaintiffs and deceased K.R.Revana Siddappa who is the

husband of defendant No.1 and father of defendant Nos.2 to

7. The plaintiffs further claimed that after death of their

father Gunda Bhaktha Revanna, the present plaintiffs and their

deceased brother K.R. Revana Siddappa inherited the suit

schedule property and they are in joint possession and

enjoyment as there was no partition in the family. The

plaintiffs further specifically pleaded that after the death of

K.R. Revana Siddappa, defendant No.1 in collusion with one of

her brothers got her name mutated in the revenue records by

falsely stating that her husband was the only legal heir of late

Gunda Bhaktha Revanna. The plaintiffs also alleged that

defendants have secured loan though suit schedule property is

ancestral property. On these set of pleadings, the plaintiffs

sought for partition by metes and bounds.

4.

On receipt of summons, the defendants entered

appearance and contested the proceedings by filing written

statement.

The

defendants

stoutly

denied

the

entire

6

averments made in the plaint and specifically contended that

this property was allotted by the Grama Panchayat to the

husband of defendant No.1 i.e., K.R.Revana Siddappa in 1962-

63 and therefore, claimed that suit schedule property is the

self acquired property of defendants. The defendants also

contended that suit schedule property never stood in the name

of Gunda Bhaktha Revanna and it was constructed by

K.R.Revana Siddappa. The defendants also contended that

the suit property which is situated in Bangalore is not included

in the present suit and hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

5.

The Trial Court, based on rival contentions of the

parties, formulated the following issues:

"1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit

schedule properties is the joint family properties?

2) Whether plaintiffs further prove that they are

entitle to 1/5^th share in the suit schedule properties?

3) Whether plaintiff is entitle to relief mesne

profit?

4) What order or decree?"

7

6.

The plaintiffs in support of their contentions,

examined

plaintiff

No.4

as

PW.1

and

examined

two

independent

witness

as

PWs.2

and

and

relied

on

documentary evidence vide Exs.P-1 to P-5. The defendants to

counter the claim of the plaintiffs, examined defendant No.1

as DW.1 and one independent witness as DW.2 and relied on

documentary evidence vide Exs.D-1 to D-19.

7.

The Trial Court having assessed ocular and

documentary evidence answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the

affirmative and decreed the suit. The Trial Court while

answering issue Nos.1 and 2 has recorded a categorical finding

that the suit schedule property was originally owned by Gunda

Bhaktha Revanna and therefore, after his death all his sons

have inherited the suit schedule property and therefore,

plaintiffs are also entitled for share as it is the joint family

property. The Trial Court has accepted the documents

produced by the plaintiffs vide Exs.P-1 to P-5. The Trial Court

having relied on the pleadings averred in the writ petition filed

8

by defendant No.1 has come to conclusion that defendants

have failed to prove that suit property is self acquired property

of K.R. Revana Siddappa who is the husband of defendant

No.1. Having taken judicial note of the pleadings in the writ

petition at paragraph No.1, the Trial Co