Once a partition of ancestral property has been executed and acted upon by family members, the property ceases to be joint family property. Subsequent alienation by individual members pursuant to such partition is valid, and such partitions cannot be reopened by other claimants alleging joint status.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH)

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 to 4 and also the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 and 10 to 22 in RFA No.100112/2020. The said counsels also represent the respective parties in RFA Crob.No.100015/2022.

2. The present appeal and cross-objection are filed against the judgment and decree dated 18.01.2020 passed in O.S.No.257/2010 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Athani (hereinafter referred to as ‘Trial Court’) questioning the granting of decree partially by the defendant No.5 and also by the plaintiffs against rejection of claim made by the plaintiffs in respect of other properties.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the plaintiffs and defendant No.3 and 4 are the children of defendant No.1 and 2. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties inherited from the father of defendant No.1 by name Channappa. The defendant No.1 has three brothers namely Bhimagouda, Apparaj and Paragouda. In the partition of the year 1986, the suit properties were allotted to the share of defendant No.1. Accordingly, name of the defendant No.1 was entered to the suit properties as per M.E.No.6508. Though the plaintiffs and defendant No.4 are married, they used to visit the suit properties now and then. Thus, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 4 are in joint possession of the suit schedule properties. It is also contented that the suit properties are fertile, irrigated lands and every year there will be surplus income and the family never faced any financial crisis. It is contended that the defendant No.1 and 3 have addicted to bad vices and have created entries showing that defendant No.1 has given two lands bearing R.S.No.392/1 and 391/2B to the defendant No.3 under M.E.No.6774 of Aigali village in the year 1988. It is contended that the said entry was effected behind the back of the plaintiffs and it is not binding on them and after coming to know about the above transactions, in the third week of June-2010, the plaintiffs requested the defendants to effect partition but the defendant No.1 did not do so. The defendant No.16 is added as party to the suit since the defendant No.3 has illegally entered the name of his wife to R.S.No.391/1. The defendant No.3 has sold 4 acres in the land bearing R.S.No.392/1 to defendant No.8 to 15 on 14.12.2000. The defendant No.1 without having any family necessity has sold 1 acre 5 guntas of land to the defendant No.6 in R.S.No.556/1 on 14.05.1996. He also sold 1 acre 30 guntas in R.S.No.557/3 to the defendant No.7 on 20.08.1999. He further sold 9 acres and 10 guntas in R.S.No.391/1A to the defendant No.5 on 16.03.2006 and the plaintiffs are not parties to these deeds and they have not come in possession of the purchased properties. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 4 are in actual possession and enjoying the same and the sale deeds are not binding on the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not executed any sale deed in favour of defendant No.5 to 15 and they have not received any consideration amount, and the sale deeds are also hallow and not binding on the plaintiffs.

4. In view of the said suit, notice was issued to the defendants and defendant Nos.1 to 4 and 16 have remained exparte. Defendant No.5, defendant No.6(a to d), 7(a to d) and defendant Nos.8 to 15 appeared through their respective counsel and filed their written statement