The present regular second appeal by defendant

Nos.2 and 3 assailing the judgment and decree of the

Courts below, whereby, plaintiff No.1 was awarded half

share in the suit schedule properties and the counter claim

filed by defendant Nos.2 and 3 seeking partition and

separate possession of their 2/3^rd share was dismissed by

the Courts below.

The parties herein are referred to as per their

ranking before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience.

The family pedigree of the parties is stated as

under:

FAMILY PEDIGREE

Dyavappa

__________________________________________________

Malakappa (D1)

Chandrawwa (Plff.No.1)

_______________________________________________

Sharawwa (D2-1^st Wife)

Girijabai (P2-2^nd Wife)

_____________

___________________________

Jayashree Basavaraj

Pushpa Kalawati Evaraj Gangadhar

(D-3) (Dead)

(P-3)

(P-4) (P-5)

(P-6)

- 5 -

Plaintiffs'

suit

for

partition

and

separate

possession seeking half share in the suit schedule

properties contending that plaintiff No.1 is the daughter of

Dyavappa, the original propositus and plaintiff No.2 is the

second

wife

of

Malakappa-defendant

No.1,

son

of

Dyavappa and plaintiff Nos.3 to 6 are the children born to

plaintiff No.2-Girijabai through defendant No.1-Malakappa.

Defendant No.2-Sharawwa is the first wife of Malakappa

and defendant No.3 is their daughter Jayashree. It is

contended that the suit schedule properties are the joint

family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3

and the plaintiffs are entitled for share in the suit schedule

properties.

Pursuant to the suit summons issued by the

Trial Court, defendant No.1 filed written statement inter

alia contending that defendant No.2 has got her name

entered without the knowledge of defendant No.1 and

contended that he has got 1/4^th share in the suit schedule

properties.

Defendant

No.4

is

the

purchaser

of

- 6 -

Sy.No.12/2B/1 measuring 9 acres 35 guntas and it is

contended that the same is not the joint family properties

of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3.

Defendant

No.2

filed

separate

written

statement

inter alia contending

and admitting

the

relationship of plaintiff No.1 with defendants, however

denied the relationship of the plaintiff Nos.2 to 6 with that

of defendant No.1. By way of counter claim defendant

Nos.2 and 3 sought for their 2/3^rd share in the suit

schedule properties and sought to allow the counter claim.

The trial Court based on the pleadings framed

the following:

"ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that plaintiffs and

defendants No.1 and 3 are joint family members are

in joint possession are the suit properties?

2. Whether the plaintiffs proves that the defendants

got entered the name behind the back of the

plaintiffs and created bogus sale deed?

3. Whether the plaintiffs proves that the defendant

No.2 is divorce wife of defendant No.1 and has no

rights to claim the suit properties of defendant No.1

- 7 -

excluding

Sy.No.12/2b/1

measuring

9Acre

35

guntas?

4. There is cause of action to defendant No.2 and 3

and they are not in joint possession and no proper

Court Fee is paid except 9 Acre 35 guntas?

5. Whether the plaintiffs proves that the defendants

denied their share?

6. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 12/4^th share

in the entire suit properties?

7. Whether the defendant No.1 is ready to pay the

court fee for his share?

8. Whether the defendant No.4 proves that he is a

bonafide purchaser of the suit properties and he is

possession from the date of possession?

The Trial Court, in view of the pleadings by both the

parties and for the sake of convenience, re-framed the

following issues and deleted the earlier issues framed:

"RE-FRAMED ISSUES

1. Whether plaintiffs prove that suit properties are

Hindu

undivided

joint

family

properties

of

themselves and defendant No.1 and 3?

2. Whether plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for

share in the suit properties? If so, to what extent?

3. Whe