The captioned Regular First Appeal is filed by the

unsuccessful defendant No.1, who has questioned a

judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.112/2005,

wherein the Trial Court has decreed the suit filed by

the plaintiff granting 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule

properties.

3

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred as per their ranks before the Trial Court.

3. The genealogical tree of the family is as

under;

Arasanahalli Anjinappa (died)

|

Sanjeevamma (80 years)

|

_________________________________________

|

|

A.Ramanjinappa (59 Yrs) Krishnappa (55 Yrs)

|

|

Smt.Anjinamma (wife) (54 years) Kantamma (wife) (45 Yrs)

|

|

___________________________

|

| | | |

|

Prakash Manjunath Basavaraju Gayathri

|

(30 Yrs) (28 Yrs) (25 Yrs) (21 Yrs)

|

_________________|__________

|

|

|

K.Bhaskar Mangalagowri K.Anand

(25 Yrs) (22 Yrs) (19 Yrs)

4. The present plaintiff has instituted a suit

seeking relief of partition and separate possession by

specifically alleging that the suit schedule properties

are the joint family ancestral properties and the family

of the plaintiff and defendants constitute a Hindu

4

Undivided Joint Family. The plaintiff has specifically

pleaded that his father late Arasanahalli Anjinappa

was the kartha of the family and after the death of his

father, he along with defendant No.1 and mother 3

defendant No.2 continued to live jointly and they are

in joint possession and enjoyment over the suit

schedule properties. The plaintiff further contended

that item No.1, which is an agricultural land bearing

Sy. No.30/1 and item No.3 a residential house bearing

Gram Panchayath No.15/23 and a vacant site

No.15/25 are ancestral properties. The plaintiff further

contended that item No.2, which is an agricultural

land bearing Sy. No.98/3 measuring 1 acre was

purchased out of joint family funds in the name of the

defendant No.1 as he was the kartha of the family and

therefore, claimed that item No.2 is also joint family

ancestral property and hence, claimed partition by

metes and bounds.

5

5. On receipt of summons, defendant No.1

contested the proceedings and stoutly denied the

entire averments made in the plaint. At para No.5 of

the written statement, defendant No.1 contended that

there was a oral partition in the year 1973 on account

of misunderstanding and differences in the family and

therefore, ancestral properties were divided by metes

and bounds. He has further specifically pleaded that

the ancestral properties were divided into two portions

and in the said partition, half portion was allotted to

the plaintiff and remaining half portion was allotted to

the defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 further claimed

that since the date of partition, they are in exclusive

possession of their respective shares. Defendant No.1

further specifically contended that item Nos.3 and 4

were allotted to defendant No.2 share and defendant

No.2 along with plaintiff continued to reside in a

residential house i.e., item No.3 and defendants left

6

the house and constructed a small shed in his portion

and started to live along with his family.

6. Defendant No.1 has stoutly denied the claim

of the plaintiff in so far as item No.2 property is

concerned. Defendant No.1 has seriously disputed the

allegation that defendant No.1 was acting as a kartha

of the joint family. On the contrary, defendant No.1

claimed that item No.2 is his self acquired property

and he has purchased it after severance in the family.

He further pleads that item No.2 was purchased from

his hard earned money and later, he has developed

the property and is in exclusive possession and

enjoyment over the suit schedule property. Defendant

No.1 further pleaded that he has put up construction in

item No.2, which includes a house measuring 20x50 feet

and a commercial building