- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100382 OF 2019 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. GANGAMMA @ PARWATHI W/O NAGAPPA SAJJAN, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE, R/O: ILKAL, TQ: ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587125. 2. VEERESH S/O GURAPPA SAJJAN AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BIDARALLI, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG-582118. 3. MALLIKARJUN S/O CHANNAPPA SAJJAN AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KAVALOOR, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-577126. 4. GAVISIDDAPPA S/O CHANNAPPA SAJJAN AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KAVALOOR, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-577126. 5. RAVI S/O CHANNAPPA SAJJAN AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KAVALOOR, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-577126. 6. BASAVARAJ S/O RUDRAPPA SAJJAN AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KAUJAGERI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG-582209. NOTE: CHANNAPPA S/O GURAPPA SAJJAN, DIED ISSUELESS ON 2.07.2015 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. R H ANGADI, ADV) Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 AND: 1. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O AYYAPPA SAJJAN AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: CONDUCTOR, R/O: ITAGI, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL-583236. 2. VEERESH @ SURESH S/O AYYAPPA SAJJAN AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BETAGERI, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-582102 3. GOLAPPA S/O KOTRAPPA SAJJAN AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HITNAL, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-583234. SINCE DEAD. BY LR’S ALREADY ON RECORD AS R4 TO R10 4. VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O GULAPPA SAJJAN AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HITNAL, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-583234. 5. PARWATHI W/O MALLIKARJUN ITAGI AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KAVALOOR, NOW AT HITNAL, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-583234. 6. LAXMIDEVI W/O VEERANAGOUDA SHANABOGAR AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: 3RD CROSS, NEAR ITI COLLEGE, GAVISHREE NAGAR, KOPPAL, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-583234. 7. SARASWATHI W/O CHANDRASHEKHAR SAJJAN AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BASAVA NAGAR, NEAR PUMP HOUSE, KOPPAL, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-583234. 8. SAVITRI W/O SURESH DINNI AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MAHADEVAPUR, TQ: KUDLAGI, DIST: BALLARI-583212. 9. KOTRESH S/O GOLAPPA SAJJAN AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: PVT. EMPLOYEE, R/O: HITNAL, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-583234. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 10. SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI W/O GOLAPPA SAJJAAN AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HITNAL, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-583234. 11. ADIVEPPA S/O KOTRAPPA SAJJAN AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BETAGERI, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-582102. 12. SHANTAWWA W/O DEVAPPA SAJJAN AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: TUMBLA, TQ: ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587125. 13. SHANTAMMA W/O AYYAPPA SAJJAN AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BETAGERI, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-582102. 14. LAXMAVVA W/O NARAYANAPPA PATRAD AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BETAGERI, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-582102. 15. YANKAVVA W/O CHANNABASAPPA KORANNAVAR AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BETAGERI, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL, NOW R/O: KENCHAMMANAHALLI, TQ HADAGALI, DIST: BALLARI-583219. 16. KOTRAPPA S/O DEVAPPA KORANNAVAR AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BETAGERI, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-582102. 17. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O RAJESH SAJJAN AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HALLIGUDI, TQ: MUNDARAGI, DIST: GADAG-582118. 18. SANGAMESH S/O ADIVEPPA SAJJAN AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BETAGERI, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-582102. 19. KOTRESH S/O LATE DEVAPPA SAJJAN AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: KEB EMPLOYEE, R/O: BETAGERI, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-582102. 20. IRAVVA @ DODDAVVA - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 W/O ADIVEPPA SAJJAN AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BETAGERI, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-582102. 21. LALITAMMA W/O YANKAPPA YALABURGA AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KAVALUR, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL-583226. 22. SUVARNA W/O NINGAPPA SAJJAN AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ILKAL, TQ: ILKAL, DIST: BAGALKOTE-587125. 23. NARASIMHASWAMY S/O DIVAKARSWAMY ANEGUNDIMATH, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GINIGERA, TQ: & DIST: KOPAL-577126. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. PATIL, ADV FOR R1, R2, R12, R13, R18 TO R20, SRI. D.V. PATTAR, ADV FOR R23, R3- DECEASED, NOTICE TO R4 TO R11, R14 TO R17, R21 & R22 ARE SERVED V/O DATED 03.03.2022, R4 TO R10 ARE LR’S OF DECEASED R3) This RFA is FILED UNDER SECTION 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 29.06.2019 PASSED IN O.S. NO.15/2009 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, KOPPAL, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This Regular First Appeal is filed by the appellants, challenging the judgment and preliminary decree dated 29.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.15/2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Koppal. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. The appellants were the plaintiffs and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this regular first appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of partition and separate possession of their respective shares in suit ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, Kotrappa was the original propositus. He had a wife by the name Halamma. Kotrappa and Halamma had 8 children i.e., Erawwa i.e., - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 mother of plaintiff Nos.2 and 3, Ayyappa i.e., father of defendant No.6 and grandfather of defendant Nos.1 and 2, Ningawwa-mother of Plaintiff No.4, 5 and 6, Gangawwa had two children namely Renavva and Devappa, and plaintiff No.7 is the grandson of Gangamma and defendant Nos.5 and 9 are the children of Renavva, defendant No.4 is the son of Kotrappa. Renavva and Devappa are the daughter and son of Kotrappa. Golappa is also the son of Kotrappa. The suit schedule properties are the joint properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants, and they constitute a Hindu joint family. The suit schedule properties were inherited by the propositus Kotrappa, and after the demise of Kotrappa, the plaintiffs and the defendants have been enjoying the suit properties jointly from a long time. The records about the suit schedule properties i.e., landed properties are standing in the name of defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4, and the suit house properties are standing in the name of defendant Nos.3, 4, father of defendant No.1 and husband of defendant No.5. The plaintiffs, demanded for a partition and separate - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 possession. The defendants denied to effect a partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendants filed a written statement admitting the genealogy shown in the cause title and contended that wife of Ayyappa, son of Kotrappa, who has died, is not arrayed as a party. It is denied that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties. It is contended that during the lifetime of Kotrappa, he was cultivating the lands. After his demise, the plaintiffs and the defendants partitioned their properties and to that effect, Mutation No.76 dated 06.04.1988 was certified in the records. Since that day, they have been enjoying the properties independently. They contended that the family members had consented to such a partition. It is contended that some of the properties are not included in the suit. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 5. Defendant No.1, 2, 5 and 6 have filed Addl. written statement regarding the valuation of ‘A’ schedule item 6 to 10 and ‘C’ schedule items 5 to 7 properties and contended that, the properties are not the joint family properties. 6. Defendant No.3(a) to 3(g) filed their written statement contending that the properties described at schedule ‘C’ are the self acquired properties of his father Golappa, as he had acquired the same under a Will executed by one Virupakshappa son of Balappa Sajjanar and accordingly prays to dismiss the suit. 7. Defendant 11 and 12 filed their written statement denying the plaint averments. It is contended that, the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. It is also contended that, the partition is already effected between the parties and the daughters have been relinquished their claim by taking 10 tola of gold and cash. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 Accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit of the plaintiff with costs. 8. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues and additional issues: Issues “1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit properties are ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and they are in joint possession? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/8th share by way of partition and separate possession in the suit properties? 3. To what decree or order? Additional Issues 1. Whether the defendant No.1, 2 and 5 prove that there was a partition in between the plaintiffs and defendants? 2. Whether they further prove that the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the defendant No.6 prove that suit is barred by law of limitation? 4. Whether the defendants No.7 to 9 prove that they are the bonafide purchasers for value as pleaded? 5. Whether the defendant No.11 and 12 prove that suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? (deleted or strike out as per order dated 21-06-2019) 6. Whether the defendant No.3(a) to (g) have prove that the suit schedule property is self acquired property of defendant No.3 by through the will deed execute by one Virupakshappa? - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 7. Whether defendant No.1,2 and 5 and 6 are proved that the plaintiffs have not included all the family properties in one hotch pot for effect partition? 8. Whether the defendant No.7 to 9 proves that they are bonafide purchaser of the suit properties for valid consideration? (This issue is strike out or deleted as per order dated 21-06-2019)” 9. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and marked 49 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-49. In rebuttal, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1. One witness Andappa was examined as DW.2, defendant No.11 was examined as DW.3, Defendant No.3(a) was examined as DW.4, defendant No.7 was examined as DW.5, defendant No.9 was examined as DW.6, defendant No.8 was examined as DW.7, and one witness was examined as DW.8 and marked 118 documents as Exs.D-1 to D-118. 10. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides, and on assessment of the oral, and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1, 2 and additional issue No.7 in the negative, additional issue - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 Nos.1 to 4 and 6 in the affirmative, additional issue Nos.5 and 8 does not arise, and issue No.3 as per the final order. 11. The suit of the plaintiffs was dismissed vide judgment dated 29.06.2019. The plaintiffs aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No.15/2009, filed this regular first appeal. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and the learned counsel for the defendants. 13. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the plaintiffs were not the parties to the alleged partition effected between defendants No.1, 2, and 4. Hence, the said alleged partition is not binding on the plaintiffs. He also submits that, the plaintiffs have not relinquished their right over the suit schedule properties. He submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence of PW.1 and the records produced. He also submits that, the suit schedule properties are not partitioned by metes and bounds. Hence, the findings recorded by the trial - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 Court is arbitrary, erroneous, and contrary to the records. Hence, on these grounds prays to allow the appeal. 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants submits that there was a prior partition between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1, 2, and 4 in 1988. Based on the partition effected between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1, 2, and 4, the mutation was effected in M.E. No.76 dated 06.04.1988 and in the said partition, 10 tolas of gold and cash of Rs.20,000/- was given to the daughters of Kotrappa. The plaintiffs were aware of the partition effected between them in 1988. The plaintiffs have filed a suit only to harass the defendants. Hence, he submits that the trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit on the ground that there was severance of status and rightly recorded a finding that there was a prior partition of the suit schedule properties. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 15. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 16. The points that arise for our consideration are: i) Whether the plaintiff proved that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants and they are in joint possession? ii) Whether defendant Nos.1, 2, and 4 prove that there was a partition in between the plaintiffs and the defendants? iii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the impugned judgment is arbitrary and erroneous? iv) What order or decree? 17. Point No.(i): It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendant Nos.1 to 6, and they are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family and no partition is effected between the plaintiffs and the defendants. 18. To substantiate their claim, plaintiff No.1 was examined as PW.1. She reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in-chief and to prove that the suit - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties, produced the documents in Exs.P-1 to P-49. Ex.P-1 is the RTC extract for 2008-09 about suit schedule 'A' Item No.1 property which stands in the name of Adiveppa, in column No.10 it is stated that Virasat Vibhaga. Ex.P-2 is the RTC extracts for 2008-09 about Sl.No.3 of schedule 'A' property which stands in the name of Adiveppa & Devappa sons of Kotrappa as per Virasat vibhaga. Ex.P-3 is the RTC extract about schedule 'A' Sl.No.4 property which stands in the name of Adiveppa and Devappa as per partition. Ex.P-4 is RTC extract for 2009 about suit schedule 'A' Sl.No.2 property which stands in the name of Shanthamma as per partition. Ex.P-5 is RTC for 2008-09 about suit 'A' schedule No.5 property which stands in the name of Suresh S/o Ayyappa, defendant No.2. Ex.P-6 is Demand extract of house property of schedule 'B' item No.1 property, which stands in the name of Adiveppa, Devappa and Ex.P-7 is Demand extract about B-schedule item No.2 property which stands in the name of father of defendant No.1 & 2 by name - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 Ayyappa. Ex.P-8 & Ex.P-9 are demand register extracts about 'B' schedule item No.3 and 4 properties which stand in the name of defendant No.3, Golappa. Ex.P-10 to 12 are Demand register extracts about 'B' schedule item No.5 & 6 properties which stand in the name of Adiveppa and Devappa. Ex.P-13 is an affidavit filed by the Halawwa W/o Kotrappa Sajjan before the land tribunal, Koppal claiming occupancy right over the properties as L.Rs of Kotrappa Sajjan, wherein the legal heirs of said Kotrappa Sajjan was mentioned as Ayyappa, Halavva, Golappa, defendant No.3, Adiveppa defendant No.4, Renawwa @ renuka and Devappa. Ex.P-14 is the statement of the L.Rs of Kotrappa Sajjan they are wife and sons of Kotrappa for declaration of occupancy right as per Form No.11 about suit schedule A properties. Ex.P-15 is proceedings of the land tribunal Koppal wherein suit A schedule properties occupancy rights conferred in favour of declarant Kotrappa. Ex.P-16 is proceedings of special Tahasildar, Koppal, wherein declarants Kotrappa Adiveppa Sajjan wherein ordered, land in Sy.No.111, measuring 12-23 acres of Betageri - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 village was deemed to have been surrendered by Kotrappa. Ex.P-17 to 21 are Nakal pahanis pertaining to Sy. No. 377 which stands in the name of Virupaxappa Balappa Tallihala and in the name of Kotrappa. Ex.P-22 to 25 are the RTCs for the year 1963-64, 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67, 1967-68, 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1977-78, 1978-79, 1980-81, 1981 to 1989 about old Sy. No. 377 and new Sy. No. 380, the name of Virupaxappa in column No.9 is appeaing as possessor and in cultivation column No.12, the name of the Kotrappa Sajjan is mentioned. Ex.P-26 is RTC for 1988-89, 1999-2000 about Sy.No.380 which stands in the name of Kotrappa. Ex.P-27 to 31 are RTC's for 1963-64 to 1981-82 about Sy. No. 111 in column No.9 and 12, the name of Kotrappa S/o Adiveppa Sajjan is mentioned as possessors and cultivator. Ex.P-32 is RTC for 1998-99, 1999-2000 pertaining to Sy.No.111/A of Betageri village which stands in the name of Ayyappa S/o Kotrappa Sajjan as Virasat Vibhaga partition. Ex.P-33 is RTC for 1998-99 to 2000-2001 about Sy.No.111/B1 - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 which stands in the name of Golappa, defendant No.3 as per the partition. Ex.P-34 is RTC for 1998-99 to 2000- 2001 about Sy.No.111/B2 which stands in the name of Laxmawwa, defendant No.7 as per sale. Ex.P-35 is RTC for 1998-99 to 2000-2001 pertaining to Sy.No.111/B3 which stands in the name of Yankawwa, defendant No.8 as per sale. It appears that the said properties are purchased by the defendant No.7 & 8. Ex.P-36, 37 & 38 are the RTC's about Sy. No. 346 of Betageri village i.e., suit schedule A item No.6 property in column No.9 & 12 the name of Kotrappa S/o Adiveppa Sajjan entered and subsequently, the name of Kotrappa deleted, and the name of Adiveppa Devappa was inserted, and name of Adiveppa Devappa is mentioned as per virasat vibhaga, partition. Ex.P-39 is RTC about Sy. No. 265/D of Betageri village which stands in the name of Kotrappa Adiveppa Sajjan wherein it is stated that in the said Survey Number plots were formed and houses were constructed. Ex.P-40 is RTC for 1988-89 bearing Sy. No. 111/B1 which is the suit item No.C item No.6 property which stands in the name of Golappa i.e., - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 defendant No.3, wherein in column No.10, it is mentioned as Virasat Vibhaga, partition. Ex.P-41 is to RTC for the Sy. No. 265/D of Betageri village i.e.. suit schedule A item No.7 property which stands in the name of Kotrappa S/o Adiveppa Sajjan. Wherein it is mentioned that plots were formed and Houses were constructed in the said land. Ex.P-42 is the RTC for 1984-85 about Sy. No.111 which stands in the name of Kotrappa Sajjan wherein it is also mentioned as Virasat Vibhaga. Ex.P-43 is RTC extract for 2015-16 about Sy. No. 265/D measuring 25 guntas which stands in the name of defendant No.2 Suresh S/o Ayyappa Sajjan. Ex.P 44 is the RTC for 2017-18 about Sy. No. 346 of Betageri Village which is the suit schedule A item No.6 of the property which jointly stands in the name of defendant No.4 and one Mahantesh Devappa Sajjan. Ex.P- 45 is the RTC for 2017-18 Sy. No. 258 of Betageri village which is suit schedule-A Item No. 8 property which stands in the name of Shankrappa Gurappa Bhavi wherein in column No. 10 it is mentioned as per the partition dated 12-09-2014. Ex.P-46 is RTC for 2017-18 which stands in - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 the name of Shankrappa Gurappa Bhavi as per partition. Ex.P-47 is RTC for 2017-18 bearing Sy. No. 258/3 of Betageri village measuring 04 acres which stands in the name of one Manjunath S/o Somappa Bhavi as per partition which is suit Item No.A schedule itme No.10 property. Ex.P-48 is RTC for 2017-18 bearing Sy. No.111/3 which is suit C schedule item No.7 property which stands in the name of Yenkavva W/o Channabasappa who is defendant No.8 in the suit wherein it is also mentioned as partition. Ex.P-49 is the RTC extract for 2017-18 bearing Sy. No. 111/4 of Betageri village which is the suit item No. C property which stands in the name of Akkamahadevi who is defendant No.3(g) as per partition dated 16-01-2016. During the course of cross-examination, it was suggested to PW-1 that, a partition was effected on 06.04.1988 in the family of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The said suggestion was denied. - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 19. From the perusal of the records produced by the plaintiffs, it discloses that, occupancy rights of the suit schedule properties were granted in favour of Kotrappa. The suit schedule properties are not the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The suit schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Kotrappa. Further, the plaintiffs have also admitted that Kotrapppa was in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, and the occupancy rights were granted in favour of Kotrappa. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that ancestors of Kotrappa were in possession of the suit schedule properties. 20. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No.(i) in the negative. 21. Point No.(ii) The defendants, to prove their defense, defendant No.2 was examined as DW.1. He reiterated the written statement averments in examination-in-chief and he has deposed that the lands - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 were granted to the family of Kotrapppa situated at Betageri village and the suit schedule ‘A’ properties are not the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 6. The plaintiffs have not produced any records to show that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Further, the defendants have produced the order passed by the Land Tribunal which discloses that the lands were granted in favour of Kotrappa as per Ex.D- 58. The defendants have also produced the records to show that there was a partition between the family members on 06.04.1988 and based on the partition effected between the parties, entries were effected in the record of rights by M.R. No.76 dated 06.04.1988. The defendants have produced a Mutation Order dated 06.04.1988 and the RTC extract which disclose, that the names of Adivepppa and Devappa are entered in the revenue records based on virasat vibhaga. The said entry has not been challenged by the plaintiffs. Admittedly, there is apartition effected in between the plaintiffs and - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 the defendants 1, 2, and 4 in 1988 and in support of the defence, the defendants have produced the RTC extract which discloses that there is partition in the family of the parties to the suit. Sub-section (5) of Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act provides that, partition means any partition made by execution of a deed of partition duly registered or effected by a decree of a Court. It is pertinent to mention that the Explanation is not found in the original amended bill moved before the law that prevailed in 1988 and an oral partition was recognized. The provision of sub-section(5) of Section 6 is required to be interpreted to cast heavy burden of proof about oral partition before it is accepted. Revenue entries in the record of rights regarding factum of partition is a relevant price of documentary evidence in support of oral evidence. The said view is supported by the law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Digambar Adhar Patil V/s. Devram Girdhar Patil (D) and another reported in AIR 1995 SC 1728. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 22. Admittedly, in the instant case, the defendants have produced M.E. No.76 and also the RTC extract which disclose that there was a partition between the family members of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 5 and the said oral partition was recognized in 1988, and based on oral partition, M.E. No.76 came into existence during the undisputed period of time. As there was a prior partition between the family members of the plaintiffs and the defendants, the defendants have proven that there was a prior partition between the family members of the plaintiffs and the defendants. 23. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No.(ii) in the affirmative holding that there was a prior partition between the plaintiffs and the defendants. 24. Point No.(iii): The trial Court placing reliance on the documents produced by the parties, has concluded that the suit schedule properties were granted in favour of Kotrappa and they are not the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 5 and - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 the plaintiffs have failed to prove that they are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family as on the date of the institution of the suit and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs, and the defendants. On the other hand, defendant Nos.1 to 5 prove that there was a prior partition between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 to 5. There was severance of status as on the date of the filing of the suit. The trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants and they are in joint possession, and the plaintiffs are not entitled to a share by way of partition and separate possession and further held that the defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 have proved that there was a partition in between the plaintiffs and the defendants and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation, as the partition was effected in 1988 and the suit was filed in 2009. Defendant Nos.7 to 9 have purchased the properties. - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 Defendant Nos.7 and 8 have purchased the lands bearing Sy.No.111/B3 measuring 5 acres, defendant No.9 had purchased Sy.No.380 under a registered sale deed from defendant No.2 for valid consideration as per the registered sale deeds dated 21.10.1988 and 23.09.1991 and they are the bona fide purchasers for a value and defendant Nos.3(a) to (g) have inherited the suit schedule properties and they are the self acquired properties of defendant No.3 by a Will executed by one Virupakshappa and the trial Court has dismissed the suit. 25. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, we answer Point No.(iii) in the negative. 26. Point Nos.(iv): As we have already answered Points (i) to (iii) in favour of the defendants, accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:620-DB RFA No. 100382 of 2019 The judgment and preliminary decree dated 29.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.15/2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Koppal, is hereby confirmed. No order as to the cost. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE kmv CT: BSB