Partition rights and classification of properties under succession laws are critical in determining share entitlement among siblings.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding.

3. The suit is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession by the sisters against the brothers claiming that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of themselves and the defendants. The defendant No.1 took the specific contention that item Nos.1 and 2 properties are granted lands. The Trial Court considering the material available on record, particularly taken note of admission on the part of D.W.1 that, item No.3 property is ancestral in nature and item Nos.1 and 2 are granted in favour of the father and item Nos.4 to 6 are the self-acquired properties of their father Siddappa and the same is discussed in paragraph Nos.15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. The learned counsel would contend that there was an earlier division between the brothers in the year 2001 in respect of item Nos.1 and 2. The learned counsel would contend that the sisters are not entitled for any share, since there was a partition in the year 2001 itself. The learned counsel would contend that there was a subsequent partition in the year 2007 and fairly submits that the same not binds the plaintiffs, since they are not the parties. The Trial Court having considered the admission on the part of D.W.1, granted the relief of 1/6^th share each in respect of the suit schedule properties and in respect of item No.3, there was no any prior division earlier to 2005 Amendment.

4. The First Appellate Court having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence available on record and keeping in view the grounds urged in the appeal, formulated the points for consideration and answered point Nos.2 and 3 in the negative considering the admission on the part of D.W.1 in the cross-examination, particularly in paragraph Nos.20, 21 and 22. In paragraph No.22, the First Appellate Court taken note of that D.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that item Nos.1 and 2 properties are inam land and said item Nos.1 and 2 are cultivating since from their great grandfather Shanthaiah and the said item Nos.1 and 2 are granted in favour of the father of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Further, it is clear from the evidence on record that there was no partition between the plaintiffs and the defendants in respect of the suit schedule properties. The defendant No.1 specifically admitted in his cross-examination that the suit schedule item Nos.1 and 2 are inam lands and item No.3 is ancestral property and item Nos.4 to 6 are self-acquired property of their father and all the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and are available for partition and hence, comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court has not committed any error and confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court.

5. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant indicating the substantial question of law is whether the mutation entries effected in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 2 pursuant to the oral partition taken place between defendant No.1, which is duly effected and acted upon is not amounting to division. Whether a married daughter can be treated as a coparcener or a joint family member when the land is granted by the Land Tribunal, since the married daughters are excluded from the definition of joint family under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. Hence, this Court has to frame the substantial question of law.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 would contend that the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate