- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH 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. 100482 OF 2018 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. DIGGEPPA S/O. BISATTEPPA DYAMALLER SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, SMT. LALITAVVA W/O. DIGGEPPA DYAMALLER, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: TAVARGI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. MALLIKARJUN S/O. DIGGEPPA DYAMALLER AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND BUSINESS, R/O: TAVARGI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. 3. SMT. GADIGEVVA W/O. BASANAGOUDA SUTTAKOTI AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE, R/O: 9TH CROSS, VIDYA NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 4. MADEVAKKA W/O. BASAVARAJ PATIL AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: TAVARGI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 AND: 1. CHANDANA D/O. KAREGOUDA DYAMALLER AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, 2. ROHIT S/O. KAREGOUDA DYAMALLER AGE: 11 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, MINOR, REPRESENTED BY MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.3, 3. PREMA W/O. KAREGOUDA DYAMALLER AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: EMPLOYEE, ALL ARE R/O: TAVARGI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI, NOW PRESENTLY R/O: 2ND CROSS, 4TH MAIN, SRI.RAM NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; R1 AND R2 ARE MINORS R/BY R3) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DTD:04.10.2018 PASSED IN O.S.NO.91/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HIREKERUR, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI) This regular first appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2018 passed in O.S.No.91/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their ranking before the trial court. The appellants were the defendants and the respondents were the plaintiffs. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this regular first appeal are as under: The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants seeking the relief of partition and separate possession of 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. It is contended that the suit schedule “A” to “E” properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. It is contended that defendant No.1 had two sons i.e., Karegouda Dyamaller, and defendant No.3, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 and two daughters i.e., defendant Nos.4 and 5. Defendant No.2 is the wife of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs are the legal heirs of the deceased Karegouda, who is the son of defendant No.1. Karegouda died on 11.08.2009 leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. The plaintiffs and the defendants, constitute a Hindu undivided joint family. All the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties, acquired by the members of the joint family, out of the properties fallen to the share of defendant No.1 during the partition that took place between defendant No.1 and his brothers and the plaintiffs are having 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 is the senior member of the family and is managing the affairs of the joint family and running a business at Ranebennur in the name and style of M/s D.B.Dyamaller General Merchants and Commission Agents and also running a business namely, Chandana Agro Traders, situated at Hirekerur for and on behalf of the joint family, involving joint family funds as a manager. Defendant No.1 has acquired certain immovable properties - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 out of the income of the joint family properties in his name as well as in the name of defendant No.3, wherein the plaintiffs are also having an equal share in the suit schedule properties. 4. It is contended that the deceased Karegouda who is the husband of plaintiff No.3 was working as LIC agent and a difference of opinion arose about their marriage, as the deceased Karegouda married plaintiff No.3 against the will and wishes of the joint family members. They started to reside at Ranebennur separately after their marriage and the relationship was strained with the joint family members. The said Karegouda started Chandana Agro Traders and acquired some properties, out of his own income without the assistance of his joint family, in consequence of strained relationship. After the death of Karegouda, the said properties are vested in the hands of the plaintiffs. Soon after the death of Karegouda, the defendants started to harass the plaintiffs by claiming their shares in the properties of the deceased Karegouda - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 and also filed a suit in O.S.No.186/2010 for issuance of Varsa certificate to avoid allotting of shares to the plaintiffs in the joint family properties. Hence, differences arose between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Due to the said difference of opinion, the plaintiffs demanded the defendants to allot their shares, for which, the defendants refused to allot the shares of the plaintiffs. As such, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 5. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 filed their written statement and defendant Nos.4 and 5 adopted the written statement filed by defendant Nos.1 to 3. The defendants in their written statement have admitted that, defendant No.1 has two sons and two daughters, wherein the first son, i.e., Karegouda died on 11.08.2009, and also admitted that, no partition has taken place in their joint family. However, they denied that, the plaintiffs are in joint possession of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that, M/s D.B.Dyamaller General Merchants and - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 Commission Agents situated at Ranebennur and Chandana Agro Traders situated at Hirekerur were managed by the deceased Karegouda. It is also denied that, defendant No.1 was managing the affairs of the above said business. It is admitted that, some of the properties have been purchased out of the joint family income in the name of defendant Nos.1 and 3 and some of the properties were acquired in the name of deceased Karegouda, out of the income of the joint family properties. It is contended that, the properties purchased in the name of the deceased Karegouda are not included in the suit. The suit for partition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary properties. It is admitted that, Karegouda was working as an LIC agent. It is denied that, they have filed suit in O.S.No.186/2010 to harass the plaintiffs. It is contended that, the plaintiffs have wrongly shown the description of the schedule “B2 to 8” properties and they have wrongly shown a number of the “C3” property and wrongly shown measurement of “D2” property. They also contended that, the suit of the plaintiff is also bad for non-joinder of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 necessary parties, since the plaintiffs have not included Parappa Basatteppa Dyamaller in the suit. It is contended that, the deceased Karegouda was managing the business and defendant No.1 never managed the business of the aforesaid firms. It is contended that, plaintiff No.3 was working as a teacher and she is an intelligent lady and she has not included the properties purchased in the name of deceased Karegouda. It is also contended that, M/s D.B.Dyamaller General Merchants and Commission Agents business was started in the year 1992-93 and during the partition effected on 29.04.2006, the said business was fallen to the share of defendant No.1. The deceased Karegouda was looking after the said business. It is also stated that, the deceased Karegouda has acquired some movable and immovable properties out of the joint family income, as specifically described as “F” to “H” properties. Hence, on these grounds, they pray to allot this shares in the properties mentioned in the written statement as well as the suit schedule properties. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 6. The trial court, based on the aforesaid pleadings, framed the following issues: 1) Whether plaintiffs prove that, the suit schedule properties only are the ancestral and joint family properties? 2) Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are interested to get 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties? 3) Whether the defendants prove that, suit is bad for non inclusion of other properties as is stated in their written statement? 4) Whether the defendants prove that, suit is also bad for non joinder of necessary parties as it is stated in para No.15 of the written statement? 5) Whether the defendants prove that, they are entitled to get 1/6th each share in the suit schedule properties and also the properties described by them in the written statement by way of partition and separate possession? 6) What order or decree? - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 7. Plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.3 was examined as P.W.1 and marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P20. In rebuttal, defendant Nos.3 and 4 have been examined as D.Ws.1 and 4, and two independent witnesses have been examined as D.Ws.2 and 3, and marked 57 documents as Exs.D1 to D57. The trial court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both the sides and on assessment of the oral and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1, 2 and 5 in the affirmative and issue Nos.3 and 4 in the negative. The suit of the plaintiffs is partly decreed. It is declared that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/5th share together, in the suit schedule properties except “D5” and “E2” properties. The defendants are at liberty to pay the court fee to carving out their share in the suit schedule properties within 7 days. 8. Defendant No.1 died during the pendency of the suit and defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the legal heirs of deceased defendant No.1. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 aggrieved - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 by the judgment and the preliminary decree dated 04.10.2018, filed this regular first appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for defendant Nos.2 to 5 and the learned counsel for the plaintiffs. 10. Learned counsel for the defendants submits that, the plaintiffs have not produced substantial evidence to prove that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties. He submits that, the suit schedule properties are not the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. He submits that, the plaintiffs have not included the properties purchased in the name of Karegouda out of the joint family funds. He submits that, the suit is not maintainable for non-inclusion of other joint family properties. He submits that, in a suit for partition and separate possession, the plaintiffs are required to include all the properties in the suit. He also submits that, the plaintiffs have not included the properties which are acquired in the name of Karegouda. He submits that, the defendants have sought for a counter - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 claim regarding the properties purchased in the name of Karegouda. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 11. In support of his case, learned counsel for the defendants placed reliance on the following judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. i) Adiveppa and Others vs Bhimappa and Another reported in (2017) 9 SCC 586; ii) Shashidhar and Others vs Ashwini Uma Mathad and Another reported in (2015) 11 SCC 269. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that, admittedly, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs and the defendants are the members of the Hindu undivided joint family and no partition is effected between the plaintiffs and the defendants. He submits that the plaintiffs have included all the joint family properties in the suit. He submits that, the trial court was justified in passing the impugned judgment - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 and decree. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The points that would arise for our consideration are: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties? 2. Whether the defendants prove that, the suit is bad for non-joinder of other properties? 3. Whether the defendants prove that, the judgment and decree passed by the trial court is perverse and arbitrary? Point No.1: 14. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, defendant No.1 is the original propositus. He is survived by two sons and two daughters. Defendant No.3 is the son and defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the daughters of defendant Nos.1 and 2. Karegouda is the son of defendant Nos.1 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 and 2. Plaintiff No.3 is the wife of Karegouda. Plaintiff No.1 is the daughter and plaintiff No.2 is the son of the deceased Karegouda. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. No partition is effected between the plaintiffs and the defendants. The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.3 was examined as P.W.1 and got marked 20 documents as Exs.P1 to P20. Ex.P1 is the RTC extract of the land bearing Sy.No.23 standing in the name of defendant No.2. Ex.P2 is the RTC extract in respect of land bearing Sy.No.21/2 standing in the name of defendant No.2. Ex.P3 is the RTC extract in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.22/1, standing in the name of defendant No.2. Ex.P4 is the RTC extract in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.20/1, Ex.P5 is the RTC extract in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.163/1A, Ex.P6 is the RTC extract in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.14/1+2, Ex.P7 is the RTC extract in respect of land bearing Sy.No.180/5, which stands in the name of defendant No.2. Exs.P8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 are the RTC extracts - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 in respect of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.181/7, 179/1, 179/5, 182/1, 103/2, 187, 232/3A/2, and 584/3, which are standing in the name of defendant No.1. Exs.P16 to 18 are the VPC extracts. Ex.P19 is the tax assessment register extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of the property bearing No.458/A, wherein, the name of defendant No.1 was wrongly shown and the name of defendant No.2 was added. Ex.P20 is the tax assessment register extract for the year 2010-11 in respect of the property bearing No.374, which discloses that, defendant No.2’s name was added. 15. During the cross-examination, P.W.1 pleads ignorance that, defendant No.1 and his brother started M/s D.B.Dyamaller General Merchants and Commission Agents and she admits that her marriage was performed in 2004. She pleads ignorance that, defendant No.1 and his brother effected a partition on 29.04.2006. She admits that, in the partition. defendant No.1 had acquired the suit schedule properties and she has instructed for drafting the - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 plaint. She denied that, the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are residing jointly. She admits that, after the marriage, she resided in her matrimonial house. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are residing at Tavaragi and she has been working as a teacher, since 2005 and defendant No.1, and his brothers partitioned the properties in 2006. She admits that, her husband died on 11.08.2009. She pleads ignorance that, defendant No.1 acquired the firm in the partition. She admits that, her husband is carrying on the business in the name of Chandana Agro Traders. She pleads ignorance that, when the said firm was started and she admits that, the income derived from the Chandana Traders was not included in the suit. After the demise of her husband, the said business was closed. She denied that, Chandana Traders was commenced out of the income of the joint family. She pleads ignorance about the properties purchased by her husband. She admits that, as per the sale deed dated 28.06.2003, her husband had purchased the property bearing Sy.No.103/2 measuring 1 acre situated at Tavaragi and also admits that he had - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 purchased the land bearing Sy.No.163/2P measuring 3 acres 6 guntas at Hirekerur under the registered sale deed dated 16.05.2005. She admits that, her husband had purchased the said property. He also purchased the properties at Ranebennur under the registered sale deeds dated 13.05.2003, 15.02.2008, 07.06.2008, 18.11.1999 and 03.12.1997. At the time of the death of defendant No.1, he was aged about 65 years. It is denied that, the properties purchased by the deceased Karegouda were out of the joint family funds. It is denied that, the properties stood in the name of Karegouda in 1997, 1999, 2003 and 2005, were purchased and those properties were the subject matter of the partition effected between defendant No.1 and his brothers and the said properties were fallen to the share of defendant No.1. It is denied that, said properties were included in the registered partition deed. 16. In rebuttal, defendant No.3 was examined as D.W.1 and he reiterated the written statement averments in his examination-in-chief. Further, to prove that, the suit - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants, the defendants have produced the documents. Ex.D1 is the Vatani Patra dated 29.04.2006, which discloses that, the partition was effected between defendant No.1 and his siblings on 29.04.2006. Ex.D2 is the registered sale deed dated 28.06.2003, wherein Sy.No.103/2 measuring 1 acre, out of 5 acres was purchased. Ex.D3 is the registered sale deed dated 16.05.2005, which discloses that, property bearing Sy.No.163/2P measuring 3 acres 6 guntas was purchased under the said registered sale deed in the name of Karegouda, i.e., husband of plaintiff No.3. Exs.D4 to D8 are the certified copies of the sale deeds, which disclose that, the said properties were purchased in the name of Karegouda. Ex.D9 is the statement of accounts of the Chandana Traders. Exs.D10 to D20 are the LIC statements. Exs.D21 to D29 are the RTC extracts. Exs.D30 to D35 are the copy of RTC extracts. Exs.D36 to D55 are the certified copies of mutation register extracts - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 and Exs.D56 and D57 are the copies of the order of the Tahasildar. 17. Defendant Nos.4 and 5 are the sisters of D.W.1 and defendant No.2 is the mother of D.W.1 and the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of his deceased brother Karegouda and he had studied up to SSLC. He admits that, Chandana Traders was in his name and before commencement of Chandana Traders, he was not doing any business. It is elicited that, during the lifetime of his father, he was looking after the family affairs. He admits that, M/s D.B.Dyamaller General Merchants and Commission Agents was standing in his father’s name and the said business started in the year 1992-93. It is elicited that, partition was effected between defendant No.1 and his siblings on 29.04.2006 and he has produced the certified copy of the partition deed. It is elicited that, he has submitted the accounts of Chandana Traders to the concerned department and the said Chandana Traders commenced in 2006 and it is elicited that, said Chandana - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 Traders was started from the amount given by his brother. He denied that, some of the properties were purchased in his name. He admits that, his father acquired the property as per Ex.D1 i.e., registered partition deed. He admits that, Karegouda was working as an LIC agent and was getting a commission. The plaintiffs were residing at Ranebennur and Karegouda got married in 2006 and he was doing LIC agency from 1990. D.W.1 pleads ignorance that, Karegouda had purchased the properties out of the income derived from his commission agent. 18. The defendants have also examined one Goneppa as D.W.2. He deposed that, Karegouda was the elder son of defendant Nos.1 and 2. He deposed that, properties were purchased out of the joint family and in the name of Karegouda. The said properties were the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. He pleads ignorance that, Karegouda was getting sufficient income from the commission agent. He admitted that, Karegouda started Chandana Traders and had purchased - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 the properties. He volunteers that, his father informed that, Karegouda had purchased the properties. 19. The defendants have also examined one Basanagouda as D.W.3 and he deposed in terms of D.W.2. 20. From the perusal of the evidence on record, it discloses that, defendant No.1 acquired the suit schedule properties under Ex.D1 wherein, a partition was effected between defendant No.1, and his siblings on 29.04.2006. The defendants have produced the duplicate copy of the partition deed dated 29.04.2006, which discloses that, the partition was effected between the defendants and his siblings and in the said partition, the suit schedule properties were fallen to the share of defendant No.1. The said document establishes that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. No partition is effected between the plaintiffs and the defendants. Thus, in view of the above discussion, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 Point No.2. 21. It is the case of the plaintiffs that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. The defendants have taken a defence that, Karegouda during his lifetime had purchased the suit schedule properties under Exs.D2 to D8 and the said properties were not included in the suit schedule. The suit is bad for non- inclusion of the other properties and also for non-joinder of necessary parties. P.W.1 in her evidence has deposed that, Karegouda was working as an LIC agent and was getting income and out of the income derived from the commission, had purchased the properties under Exs.D2 to D8. It is the case of the defendants that, the said properties were purchased out of the joint family funds. From the perusal of the cross-examination of D.Ws.1 to 3, they have admitted that, Karegouda was working as an LIC agent and was getting income and out of the income, he had acquired the said properties in his name. The - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 defendants to establish that, the family possessed surplus funds and that, out of the income derived from the said properties, Karegouda had purchased the said properties under Exs.D2 to D8, they have not produced any other records. To establish that, said properties were purchased out of the joint family income, the defendants have not produced any records to establish that, what was the income, the family was getting out of the joint family properties, how much amount was saved, and whether the said amount was kept in the business of the aforesaid firms. The defendants have failed to establish that, the properties were acquired in the name of Karegouda, out of the joint family income. 22. It is settled law that, in a suit for partition and separate possession, the initial burden is on the party who alleges that, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties, and once if the said burden is discharged, the burden shifts to the party alleging self- acquisition to establish affirmatively that, the property was - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 acquired without the aid of the joint family property by cogent and necessary evidence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Appasaheb Peerappa Chandgade vs Devendra Peerappa Chandgade And Others reported in AIR 2007 SC 218, has held that, there is no presumption of a joint Hindu family but on the evidence if it is established that, the property was joint Hindu family property and the other properties were acquired out of that nucleus, if the initial burden is discharged by the person who claims joint Hindu family, then the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that, the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property by cogent and necessary evidence. The said view, is also supported by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Makhan Sing (D) by LRs vs Kulwant Singh reported in (2009) 10 SCC 602. 23. As observed above, defendant Nos.1 to 3 have admitted that, Karegouda was working as an LIC agent and was getting sufficient income, and out of the - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 commission, he had purchased the properties. The said properties are the self-acquired properties of Karegouda. The defendants have no role in claiming a share in the properties acquired by Karegouda under Exs.D2 to D8. The trial court has rightly held that, the said properties are the self-acquired properties of Karegouda. Further, the trial court has rightly recorded a finding that, there is no partition effected between the plaintiffs and the defendants, and the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of both the plaintiffs and the defendants. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No.2 in the negative. Point No.3. 24. The trial court considering the entire material on record and the admission of D.Ws.1 to 3, who have admitted that, the suit schedule properties were fallen to the share of defendant No.1 as per Ex.D1, came to the conclusion that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiffs and - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 the defendants and the plaintiffs are entitled to their share in the suit schedule properties. 25. During the pendency of the suit, the defendants have filed an application seeking amendment of the written statement, to include the properties mentioned in the written statement. The said application was dismissed by the trial court, vide order dated 14.11.2014. The defendants preferred the writ petition in W.P.No.112243/2014. The said writ petition was dismissed, vide order dated 28.10.2015. The defendants have failed to establish that the properties acquired by Karegouda as per Exs.D2 to D8 are the joint family properties. The trial court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and decree. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial court. In view of the above discussion, we answer point No.3 in the negative. 26. We have perused the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the defendants. There is no dispute - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:147-DB RFA No. 100482 of 2018 regarding law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions. However, the said decisions do not apply to the case on hand. 27. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to pass the following; ORDER The Regular First Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 04.10.2018 passed in O.S.No.91/2011 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur, is hereby confirmed. No order as to the cost. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE MBS ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 14