H.G. Ramesh, J.

1. This first appeal is by the plaintiffs and is directed against the judgment and decree dated 06.08.2012 passed by the Court of First Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubli, R.F.A. No. 4212/2013 dismissing their suit in O.S.No.119/2008 filed for partition of suit properties and for a declaration that the sale deed dated September 9, 2005 executed by their father (Defendant No.1) in favour of defendant No.4 in respect of the suit land measuring 3 acres 38 guntas was not binding on them. The only other suit property is a house property. The plaintiffs claimed 3/6th share in the suit properties stating that the suit properties were ancestral properties.

2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants, perused the impugned judgment and the record of the trial Court. The parties are referred to herein as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. The trial Court, on an appreciation of the evidence on record, has held that the suit properties were individual and separate properties of the plaintiffs’ father defendant No.1, as they were self acquired properties of his father Basavanneppa, and therefore, the plaintiffs could not claim any right in the suit properties, and accordingly has dismissed the suit. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiffs.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that the finding of the trial Court, that the suit properties which had fallen to the share of the plaintiffs’ father (Defendant No.1) as per partition deed–Ex.P9 were his individual and separate properties, is erroneous in law.

5. The question that requires to be considered in this appeal is, whether the finding of the trial Court that the suit properties were individual and separate properties of the plaintiffs’ father is correct in law?

6. For clarity, it is necessary to refer to the genealogy of the parties.

Basavanneppa (died in 1972)
Gouramma
Basavaraj (Deft. No. 1)		Irappa	Shidappa		Mahadevi		Neelawwa		Channamma	Sumangala
Parawwa (Deft. No. 2)
Shakuntala (Pltf No.1)	Manjula (Pltf No.2)			Rajeshwari (Pltf No.3)		Basavanneppa (Deft. No.3)

7. The plaintiffs are the daughters of first defendant. First defendant’s father Basavanneppa died intestate in the year 1972. There is no dispute that the suit properties were purchased by Basavanneppa. Basavanneppa had purchased the suit land by sale deed dated 28.12.1966 as per Ex.P5. Subsequently, in the year 2004, in the partition between the sons, daughters and widow of deceased Basavanneppa, the suit properties fell to the share of the plaintiffs’ father defendant No.1. The aforesaid partition was effected by a registered partition deed dated 20.04.2004 as per Ex.P9.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants, in support of his contention that the suit properties were ancestral properties, was not able to refer to any evidence on record to show that the suit properties which were purchased by the plaintiffs’ grandfather Basavanneppa were ancestral properties in his hands. There is no evidence to show that at the time of purchase of the suit properties by Basavanneppa, there were any ancestral properties, and out of income from such ancestral properties, the suit properties were purchased by Basavanneppa. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the suit properties were self acquired properties of Basavanneppa, and hence, the plaintiffs who are his grand daughters will not get any right in the suit properties.

9. After coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, self acquired or separate property of a male Hindu, when devolved on his heirs, would assume the character of ‘self acquired property’ in their hands and they hold it as their individual and separate property. It is relevant to state that there was divergence of judicial opinion as to whether a son who inherits the self acquired or coparcenary propert