1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.11.2018 passed in R.A.No.74/2013 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Shivamogga.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the respondent No.1 / plaintiff before the Trial Court is that she is the daughter of late S G Govindappa and defendant No.1; defendant Nos.2 and 3 are her brothers and defendants Nos.4 and 5 are her sisters. It is also her case that she had another sister by name Shashikala who died issueless. It is contended that they are the members of Hindu undivided joint family and suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties are the joint family properties and they are in joint possession of the same. Item Nos.1 and 4 of 'A' schedule were the tenanted lands cultivated by S G Govindappa as a tenant during his lifetime and he died intestate on 08.08.1975. Thereafter, the defendants being the legal representatives of deceased Govindappa, succeeded to the tenancy and got the said properties granted for the benefit of the family. Item Nos.2 and 3 of 'A' schedule property is absolutely belonged to S G Govindappa and it was granted to him under Darkasth by the Government. 'B' schedule property is an ancestral and joint family property. After the death of S G Govindappa, defendant No.1 was managing the joint family properties with the help of defendant No.2. Now, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are managing the said properties as kartha of the joint family. After the marriage, her relationship with defendant Nos.1 to 3 got strained and during April 2010, she came to know that defendant Nos.2 and 3 are mismanaging the joint family properties as well as they are attempting to alienate 'B' schedule property. It is also the case of the plaintiff that she demanded for partition and the same was turned down by the defendants. On obtaining the documents pertaining to the suit properties, she came to know that defendant Nos.1 to 4, in collusion with each other, have created partition deed pertaining to 'A' schedule property among themselves behind her back. Hence, she filed the suit for the relief of declaration, partition and separate possession and mesne profits.

4. In pursuance of suit summons, defendant No.1 filed the written statement and other defendants have adopted the same. In the written statement, they have admitted the relationship between the parties. Defendant No.1 contends that 'B' schedule property was purchased by the grandmother of the plaintiff in the capacity of S. G. Govindappa's minor guardian and the same was a dwelling house in the occupation of defendant Nos.1 to 4 and defendant No.4, after divorce, is residing in the 'B' schedule property with them. The suit schedule item Nos.1 to 4 were cultivated by defendant Nos.2 and 3 as tenants and it was granted in their favour under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act. S G Govindappa was not cultivating item Nos.1 and 4 of 'A' schedule as a tenant as claimed by the plaintiff. Recently, 'B' schedule property is let out on rentals. Late S. G. Govindappa was an advocate by profession and he never cultivated any lands. The suit 'A' schedule property was personally cultivated by defendant Nos.2 and 3. The income of S G Govindappa was sufficient for their hand to mouth existence and it was never invested in agricultural lands or for the improvement of 'B' schedule property. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are independently cultivated the suit schedule properties i.e., defendant No.2 is cultivating 0.32 gunta, 2 acre and 1.13 acre in Sy.No.124, 127 and 53 of Toppinaghatta, whereas, defendant No.3 is cultivating 2 acre, 1.10 acre in Sy.No.127 and 53 of Toppinaghatta respectively. They thought it fit to convert 0.11 gunta of land in Sy.No.32 as a farm land with farm house and allowed defendant No.1 to look after the same. The katha of these properties stand in their individual names and they have develope