An unregistered partition deed is insufficient to establish a partition when accompanied by suspicious circumstances like the exclusion of heirs. Property inherited by legal heirs devolves under succession law, and daughters as coparceners are entitled to an equal share regardless of prior characterizations of occupancy rights.

RSA FILED UNDER SEC.100 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 24.4.2013 PASSED IN R.A.NO.333/2010 ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE, DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 3.9.2010 PASSED IN O.S.NO.144/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC., NELAMANGALA.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL JUDGMENT

This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellants challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2013 passed in R.A.No.333/2010 by the learned Prl. District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.144/2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Nelamangala.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their rankings before the trial Court. Appellant No.1 was defendant No.2, appellant Nos.2 to 5 are the legal representatives of defendant No.1. respondent No.1 was the plaintiff and respondent No.2 was defendant No. 3.

3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

The plaintiff filed suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that Gangaiah was the original propositus. He had four children. The plaintiff and defendant No.3 are the daughters, and defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the sons of Gangaiah. It is contended that he was the absolute owner of the properties measuring 5 acres 17 guntas, bearing Sy.No.2 situated at Kodipalya village, Dasanapura Hobli, Bangalore and the other suit properties. The plaintiff was not given any share in the suit schedule properties. It is contended that to deprive the legitimate right of the plaintiff. The other defendants have executed a sale deed in favour of defendant No.3. Till the death of Gangaiah, Gangaiah was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that the plaintiff and the defendants are members of the Hindu undivided joint family and the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, and no partition is effected. The plaintiff demanded partition and separate possession, but the defendants refused to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to award 1/4th share to the plaintiff.

3.1. The defendants filed a common written statement contending that the suit schedule A and B properties were cultivated by late Gangaiah since 1940 as a tenant under the landlord, as the said lands were inam lands. After advent of the Inam Abolition Act, Gangaiah got registered himself as an occupant of the said lands. The Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 24.07.1970 registered Gangaiah as an occupant of the suit A and B properties. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were cultivating the suit schedule properties along with Gangaiah jointly. Defendant No.2 constructed a residential house in suit schedule properties out of his earnings. 'B' schedule property bearing Sy.No.1/4 measuring 9 guntas do not have a residential house on it. During the lifetime of Gangaiah, he effected a partition between defendant Nos.1 and 2. Based on the partition, Panchayat Parikath was executed in between defendant Nos.1 and 2 on 05.05.1975. Based on the Panchayat Parikath, the names of defendant Nos.1 and 2 were entered in the revenue records. It i