This Regular Second Appeal is filed by defendant

No.2 in O.S. No.98/2009 challenging the judgment and

decree dated 11.04.2011 passed by Prl. Civil Judge

(Jr.Dn.) Srirangapatna (henceforth referred to as 'Trial

Court')

partitioning

the

suit

properties

which

was

confirmed

by

Prl.

Senior

Civil

Judge

and

Srirangapatna (henceforth referred to as 'First Appellate

Court') in R.A. No.31/2011 in terms of the judgment and

decree dated 13.01.2016. Both the Courts held that the

4

plaintiffs were entitled to 11/180^th share in the suit

schedule properties.

2.

The parties shall henceforth be referred as

they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3.

It

was

claimed

by

the

plaintiffs

that

Giddayyana Dyavaiah was the propositus of a joint family

comprised of Dyavarasaiah, the husband of plaintiff No.1

and father of plaintiff No.2 as well as defendants No.2 to 9.

The plaintiffs claim that the suit schedule properties were

the ancestral and joint family properties. They contended

that Dyavarasaiah died on 27.06.1996 leaving behind the

plaintiffs and defendant No.1 as his Class-I heirs. The

request of the plaintiffs to partition joint family estate was

turned down by the defendants which compelled them to

file a suit for partition and separate possession of their

undivided share.

4.

The suit was contested by defendant No.2, who

admitted the relationship. He, however, contended that he

5

and his parents were living separately prior to 27.06.1996,

in view of certain mis-understanding in the family. He

claimed that he was doing independent business and was

earning his livelihood without the assistance of the joint

family properties. He claimed that he had purchased the

suit property bearing Items No.3, 16 to 18, 20 and 22 out

of his own earnings by borrowing money and from financial

aid from his parents-in-law. He, therefore, claimed that

the suit in respect of the aforesaid properties be dismissed.

He also claimed his share in the joint family ancestral

properties excluding Items No.3, 16 to 18, 20 and 22.

5.

Based on the above contentions, the Trial

Court framed the following issues :

i. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit

schedule properties are ancestral and joint family

properties themselves and the defendants?

ii. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the suit

schedule properties i.e. item Nos.3, 16, 17, 18,

20 and 22 are the self acquired and independent

properties of himself?

iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as

sought for?

iv. What order or decree?

6

6.

The plaintiff No.1 was examined as P.W.1, who

marked documents as Exs.P1 to P25, while the defendant

No.2 examined himself as D.W.1 and marked documents

as Exs.D1 to D17. He also examined two witnesses as

D.Ws.2 and 3.

7.

Based on the oral and documentary evidence,

the Trial Court held that except the oral testimony of

D.Ws.2 and 3, the defendant No.2 did not place on record

any material to establish that he had a separate income

without the aid and assistance from the joint family

property. It also held that since the defendant No.2 had

admitted his relationship with the plaintiffs, in the absence

of any material to establish that the suit Items No.3, 16 to

18, 20 and 22 were the absolute properties of the

defendant No.2, the plaintiffs were entitled to undivided

share, and therefore, decreed the suit and declared that

the plaintiffs were entitled to 11/180^th share in the suit

schedule properties.

8.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and

decree, the defendant No.2 filed an appeal insofar as it

7

related to the properties bearing Items No.3, 16 to 18, 20

and 22.

9.

The First Appellate Court secured the records

of the Trial Court, heard the counsel for the parties and

after considering the material on record, framed points for

consideration and in terms of its judgment and decree

dated 13.01.2016 dismissed the appeal. While doing so,

the First Appellate Court rejected an application filed by

defendant No.2 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC.

10.

Be