- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 30TH 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. 100555 OF 2019 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NAGAVVA W/O. BASAPPA RAGER D/O. LATE MATTIHALLI ADIVEPPA @ ADIVEPPA MATTIHALLI, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HER LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 1A) SMT. PARWATHEVVA SANGUR W/O. SHIVABASAPPA, AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: KABBUR VILLAGE-581110 TQ: DIST: HAVERI. 1B) SHIVANDAPPA RAGER S/O. BASAPPA AGE ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: CHINNAMULAGUNDA VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581111. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA Date: 2025.02.15 11:34:55 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 1C) SMT. RENUKA W/O. SHIVALINGAPPA GUDDER, AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: CHINNAMULAGUNDA VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581111. 1D) SMT. NIRMALA W/O. HANUMANTHAPPA BANAKAR, AGE ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O: CHINNAMULAGUNDA VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581111. 2. SMT. GOURAVVA W/O. SHIVAPPA MASANAGI D/O. LATE MATTIHALLI ADIVEPPA @ ADIVEPPA MATTIHALLI, AGE : 62 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: CHINNAMULUGUNDA VILLAGE, TQ : HIREKERUR, : HAVERI-581111. 3. SMT. GANGAVVA W/O. SOMANAGOUDA PATIL D/O. LATE MATTIHALLI ADIVEPPA @ ADIVEPPA MATTIHALLI, AGE : 56 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HULLATTI VILLAGE, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI-581111. 4. SMT. MALLAVVA W/O. SANNAGOUDA PATIL D/O. LATE MATTIHALLI ADIVEPPA @ ADIVEPPA MATTIHALLI, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 AGE : 52 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HULLATTI VILLAGE, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI-581111 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. S.L. MATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. MATTIHALLI SOMAPPA @ SOMAPPA MATTIHALLI AGE : 64 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: YOGIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI-581111. 2. SMT. ANUSUYA W/O. SHIVANANDAPPA PATIL D/O. MATTIHALLI SOMAPPA @ SOMAPPA MATTIHALLI AGE : 47 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK/ANGANWADI TEACHER, R/O: BALEMBIDA CROSS, BEHIND MANJUNATH TEMPLE, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI-581111. ADDL. ADDRESS: ARIKATTI VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581111. 3. SMT. VINODA W/O. BASAPPA SHIDENUR D/O. MATTIHALLI SOMAPPA @ SOMAPPA MATTIHALLI AGE : 45 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: YOGIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI-581111. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 4. SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O. DEVENDRAPPA HOSAMANI D/O. MATTIHALLI SOMAPPA @ SOMAPPA MATTIHALLI AGE : 42 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MANCHIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ : SHIRALAKOPPA, DIST : SHIMOGA-577428. 5. SRI. MATHIHALLI ADIVEPPA @ ADIVEPPA MATTIHALLI S/O. MATTIHALLI SOMAPPA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURIST, R/O : YOGIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI-581111. 6. SRI. MATHINALLI BASAVARAJ @ BASAVARAJ MATTIHALLI S/O. MATTIHALLI SOMAPPA, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURIST/DRIVER R/O : YOGIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI-581111. 7. SRI. HOLIYAPPA @ HOLEBASAPPA @ MATTIHALLI HOLEBASAPPA S/O. MATTIHALLI ADIVEPPA @ ADIVEPPA MATTIHALLI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: YOGIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI 581111. SRI.HALESHAPPA S/O. HOLIYAPPA @ HOLEBASAPPA @ MATTIHALLI HOLEBASAPPA (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS) 8. SMT.RATNAVVA W/O. LATE HALESHAPPA AGE : 40 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEWIFE, R/O: YOGIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI-581111. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 9. SUMA D/O. LATE HALESHAPPA AGE : 17 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT, R/O: YOGIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI-581111. 10. PARVATI D/O. LATE HALESHAPPA AGE : 15 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT, R/O: YOGIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI-581111. 11. DEEPA D/O. LATE HALESHAPPA AGE : 13 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT, R/O: YOGIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI-581111. 12. DARSHAN S/O. LATE HALESHAPPA AGE : 10 YEARS, OCC : STUDENT, R/O: YOGIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI-581111. THE RESPONDENT NO.9 TO 12 ARE MINOR REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.8 NAMELY SMT. RATNAVVA W/O. LATE HALESHAPPA. 13. SMT. MAHADEVAKKA W/O. LATE HOLIYAPPA @HOLEBASAPPA @ MATTIHALLI HOLEBASAPPA AGE : 57 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURIST, R/O: YOGIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI-581111 14. SRI. MATTIHALLI CHANDRAPPA @ CHANDRAPPA MATTEIHALLI S/O. MATTIHALLI ADIVEPPA - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 AGE : 58 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURIST, R/O: YOGIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI-581111 15. SRI. MATTIHALLI NAGAPPA @ NAGAPAP MATTEIHALLI S/O. MATTIHALLI ADIVEPPA @ ADIVEPPA MATTIHALLI AGE : 54 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURIST, R/O: YOGIKOPPA VILLAGE, TQ : HIREKERUR, DIST : HAVERI-581111. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. AVINASH BANAKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6 AND R13; R2 IS LRS OF DECEASED R1; NOTICE TO R7 SERVED; R8 TO R11 ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R7; NOTICE R12 AND R14 SERVED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC. 96 (1) READ WITH ORDER 41 RULE 1 OF CPC., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED:02.11.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.12/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, HIREKERUR, DISMISSING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) 1. This Appeal is filed by plaintiffs/ appellants, challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2019, passed in O.S.No.12/2017, by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court. 3. The appellants were plaintiffs, the respondents were the defendants, before trial court. 4. Brief facts of the case of both the parties before the trial Court are as under: 5. The plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Adiveppa S/o Somappa Mattihalli is the original propositus of the family of the plaintiffs and - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 defendants. Adiveppa was earlier married to one Chinnavva and from the said marriage, he had a daughter by name Shantavva. The said Shantavva took share in the family properties. After the death of Chinavva, Adiveppa married to Parvathevva. From the said marriage, Adiveppa had eight children. The plaintiffs are the daughter of Adiveppa, through her second wife Smt.Parvatemma. Adiveppa had a son by name Somappa. Defendant No.1- Ratnavva is the wife of Somappa and defendant Nos.2 to 6 are children of Somappa and Ratnavva. Holeyappa is the second son of Adiveppa, who is defendant No.7. Holeyappa had a wife by name Mahadevakka, who is defendant No.9 and they had son by name Haleshappa, who is defendant No.8. Other sons of Adiveppa are Chandrappa and Nagappa, who are defendant Nos. 10 and 11. The suit schedule property is the joint family and ancestral property. After the death of Adiveppa, plaintiffs demanded their share, but the defendants refused to grant a share. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 6. The trial Court issued summons to the defendants and defendants appeared through their counsels. Defendants filed their written statement. It is contended by the defendants that the suit schedule property is not the joint family property as on the date of the suit and the said property was already partitioned in the year 1994. While mutating the revenue records, the plaintiffs have signed in ‘U’ form and the plaintiffs have consented to enter the names of the sons of Adiveppa. Accordingly, mutation No.1208 was passed in respect of the suit schedule property. Thereafter, the elder son of Somappa once again partitioned the suit schedule property through Apsath Vatni Durasti Parthra dated 03.07.2001. Accordingly, M.E.No.1366 was entered in respect of the suit schedule property. Hence, the suit schedule property was partitioned in the year 1994 itself and the plaintiffs have no rights to claim their shares in the suit schedule property. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 7. The trial Court on the basis of rival contentions of the parties, framed the following issues: ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they themselves and the defendants are the joint family members and the suit schedule properties are all the ancestral and joint family properties of themselves and the defendants? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, they are in possession of the schedule properties along with the defendants? 3. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for share as sought for? 5. What order or decree? 8. To substantiate their case, plaintiff No.4 examined herself as PW.1 and marked 8 documents as Ex.Ps.1 to 8. In rebuttal, the defendant Nos.10 and 11 examined themselves as D.W.1 and 2 respectively, and 13 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 documents were marked as EX.D.1 to D.13. The trial Court after hearing both the parties and appreciating the material available on record, by impugned judgment, dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.11.2019, passed in O.S.No.12/2017 filed this Regular First Appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs and the respondents/defendants. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the genealogy of the family is not in dispute. The suit property is succeed and inherited by Adiveppa is also not in dispute. He further submits that the defendants contended that about prior partition of the year 1994. And after the partition, they applied for mutation of the revue records and at the time of mutation of the revenue records, notice was issued to the plaintiffs and they have signed on the ‘U’ form. He further submits that mere mutation of the revenue records does not extinguish the right of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property. They - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 have not consented for the partition and no properties were given to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have right in the suit schedule property. Therefore, the partition of the year 1994 will not bind to the right of the plaintiffs. The suit property was inherited from ancestors and hence, plaintiffs have also share in the said property. The trial court has not considered these facts. Basing on the mutation records held that there was prior partition of the year 1994 and erroneously dismissed the suit. Hence prayed to set aside the impugned decree and allow the appeal by decreeing the suit as prayed. 11. In supports of his arguments, he relied on the following judgments: i) P.Kishore Kumar V/s. Vittal K Patkar, reported in MANU/SC/1241/2023. ii) Anasuya and Ors V/s. Sumangala and Ors. reported in MANU/KA/1839/2022. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 iii) Bheemappa V/s. Sheela, reported in MANU/KA/1854/2022. iv) Avvamma V/s the State of Karnataka, by its Secretary and Others, reported in ILR 2006 KAR 3018. v) Basalingappa Channappa & Ors V/s. Dundappa Puttappa Panchappanavar, reported in ILR 1998 KAR 2650. vi) Boramma V/s. Srinivasa and Ors., reported in MANU/KA/0009/2009. vii) Puttamma and Ors. V/s. S.G.Jayanthi and Ors., reported in MANU/KA/1068/2023. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 6 and 13 submits that Adiveppa died in the year 1975. After his death, his son effected a partition in the year 1994 and as per the said partition, with the knowledge and consent of the plaintiffs, revue records were mutated. The plaintiffs have signed on the ‘U’ - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 form which is not in dispute and the copies of said ‘U’ forms were produced at Ex.D.3 and D.4. He further submits that mutation entries were made in the revenue records as per Ex.D.5 and D.6 and those entries were not at all challenged by the plaintiffs. Therefore, now they are estopped from contending that they were unaware of the partition made in the year 1994 and it does not bind the rights of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have no right in the suit property and as on the date of filing of the suit, the suit property is not the joint family property and hence, the suit is not maintainable. Considering these facts, the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit. It does not call for interference. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 13. In supports of his arguments, he relied on the following judgment: i) Ravinder Kaur Grewal and others V/s. Manjit Kaur and others, reported in (2020) 9 SCC 706. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 14. The following points emerge for our consideration: (i) Whether the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that as on the date of the suit, the suit schedule property was not a joint family property and suit schedule property was partitioned in the year 1994? (ii) Whether the trial Judge has erred in accepting the mutation records to believe the earlier partition? (iii) Whether the interference in the finding given by the trial judge is required? (iv) What order or decree? 15. Point Nos.1 and 2 are interlinked with each other and hence, in order to avoid repetition of facts, they are taken up together for common discussion. 16. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The plaintiffs to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.4 was examined as PW.1 and in her evidence, she reiterated the plaint averments and got marked RTC extracts as Ex.P.1 to P.8 which are standing in the names of sons of Adiveppa. In - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 her cross-examination, she denied the suggestion of the defendants that the suit property was partitioned in the year 1994 and revenue records were mutated. She volunteered that recently she came to know about the mutation of the revenue records i.e. during the year 2017. She denied the suggestion that she signed on the ‘U’ form and she also denied that she took cash as a part of their shares in the suit schedule property. 17. Defendant No.10 is examined as DW.1. In his evidence, he has narrated his contentions. He has stated that during the year 1994, they had a partition in the joint family property and accordingly they requested the revenue authorities for making entries in this regard. Notices were issued to the daughters of Adiveppa and they had given consent to effect mutation as per the partition. Accordingly, mutation entry No.1208 was passed. During the evidence of D.W.1, documents at Ex.D.1 to 11 were marked. In his cross examination, it was suggested on behalf of the plaintiffs that all the plaintiffs were married - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 prior to the death of Adiveppa. It was suggested to D.W.1 that on Ex.D.1, plaintiff No.1 has put her LTM mark. It was suggested to him that there was no partition in the family and he denied the said suggestions. 18. Defendant No.11 was examined as DW.2 and in his examination-in-chief, he stated that there was a partition and the plaintiffs have no rights over the suit property. In the cross examination it was suggested that the suit schedule property was the joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants and there was no partition and the plaintiffs have a share in the suit schedule property, and the suit schedule property. DW.2 admitted said suggestions. 19. The evidence of D.W.1 is corroborated by revenue records i.e. Ex.D.1 to D.4. In the said documents, it is mentioned that suit schedule property is the joint and ancestral property and they were divided between the parties and shares were given to the sons of Adiveppa. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 20. DW.2 did not file written statement before trial court. But got himself examined as DW.2. In his examination chief, he has stated about prior portion and contented that plaintiffs have no right over suit property. Contrary to the same he has stated in the cross examination that there was no partition of the year 1994. He has signed wardhi given to revenue authority to effect partition and signed on Ex.D.2. 21. In the case of Digambar Adhar Patil V/s. Devram Girdhar Patil (died) and Another, reported in 1995 Supp(2) Supreme Court Cases 428, has held that the entries in the Record of Rights regarding the factum of partition is a relevant piece of documentary evidence in support of the oral evidence given, by the respondent and his brother to prove the factum of partition. The respondent’s brother in his evidence clearly stated that there was a partition but he could not give the date and year in which the partition was effected nor the deed of the partition produced. Under the Hindu Law, it is - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 not necessary that the partition should be effected by a registered partition deed. Even a family arrangement is enough to effectuate the partition between coparceners and to confer right to a separate share and enjoyment thereof. Under those circumstances, when the factum of partition was evidenced by entries in the Record of Rights, which was maintained in official course of business, the correctness thereof was not questioned; it corroborates the oral evidence given by the brother and lends assurance to accept it. 22. Contrary to the said document, he gave evidence before the trial Court. However, in the examination-in-chief, he has stated that there was earlier partition effected between the plaintiffs and defendants. Hence, evidence of D.W.2 is not reliable. Ex.D.4 was signed by the plaintiffs at an undisputed point of time, i.e. in the year 1994 and the partition was acted upon. Accordingly, revenue records were mutated in the year 1994 with the knowledge of plaintiffs. They did not - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 challenge the said mutation records till this day. Therefore, now they are estopped from contending that the said revenue records are created to defeat the rights of the appellants. In view of long standing entries revenue records are standing in the names of sons of Adiveppa from the year 1994 till 2017. The said revenue entries were made with consent of plaintiffs and said revenue entries were not at all disputed and challenged by the aggrieved persons. It was acted upon. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that revenue entries will not extinguish the right of the persons over the immovable properties is not acceptable. Considering facts and circumstance of present case, plaintiffs have knowledge that there was a partition during 1994 in the wardhi it was stated that shares of daughters of Adiveppa were given in the form of gold and cash. They did not dispute this fact while signing the ‘U’ form. They have also not challenged the partition and signed the said documents. They kept quiet for last about 22 years from the date of partition. According to the said partition, - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 properties were divided between the sons of Adiveppa. Under these circumstances, defendants have proved oral partition of the year 1994 and there are no reasons to hold that there was no prior partition in the year 1994 between the sons of Adiveppa in respect of the ancestral and joint family property. 23. As per the submission of learned counsel for the appellants and suggestions to DW.1, the daughters of Adiveppa were married before death of Adiveppa or before Government of Karnataka amended the Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act and Section 6A was inserted to the central Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 24. The provision of Section 6A of the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990 which reads as under: "6A. Equal rights to daughter in co- parcenary property.- Notwithstanding anything contained in section 6 of this Act,- - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 (a) in a joint Hindu family governed by Mitakshara law, the daughter of a co- parcener shall by birth become a co- parcener in her own right in the same manner as the son and have the same rights in the co-parcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son inclusive of the right to claim by survivorship and shall be subject to the same liabilities and disabilities in respect thereto as the son; (b) at a partition in such Joint Hindu Family the co-parcenary property shall be so divided as to allot to a daughter the same share as is allotable to a son: Provided that the share which a predeceased son or a predeceased daughter would have got at the partition if he or she had been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the surviving child of such predeceased son or of such predeceased daughter: Provided further that the share allotable to the predeceased child of the predeceased son or of a predeceased daughter, if such child had been alive at the time of the partition, shall be allotted to the child of such predeceased child of the predeceased son or of such predeceased daughter, as the case may be; - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 (c) any property to which a female Hindu becomes entitled by virtue of the provisions of clause (a) shall be held by her with the incidents of co-parcenary ownership and shall be regarded, notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or any other law for the time being in force, as property capable of being disposed of by her by will or other testamentary disposition; (d) nothing in clause (b) shall apply to a daughter married prior to or to a partition which had been effected before the commencement of Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990. (emphasis supplied) 25. According to the contention of the appellants, suit schedule property is the ancestral and joint family property. As on the said date, the Hindu Succession (Karnataka Amendment) Act, 1990 (for short the Act) was prevailing. According to the provisions of Section 6A of the Act married daughters whose marriages were effected prior to the amended Act, were not entitled for share and they were not co-parceners. Therefore daughters of Adiveppa had no right to claim share in the - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 properties belongs to his ancestors as on the date of effecting the partition as they were not co-parceners. Hence, the earlier partition of the year 1994 entered between the sons of deceased Adiveppa prevails. Therefore, plaintiffs were not entitled to share in the suit schedule property as on the date of partition effected between the brothers of the appellants. 26. Since the appellants had no rights over the suit schedule property belonging to joint family which was divided between brothers of the appellants, the question of extinguishing of the rights by virtue of the mutation entries does not arise. Therefore, the law laid down in the judgments relied by learned counsel for the appellants is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is no dispute in respect of the law laid down in the said judgment relied by learned counsel for the appellants. However they are not applicable to facts and circumstances of present case. Facts of the present case are different. In view of the - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 above said discussion, the learned trial Judge has rightly held that as on the date of filing of the suit, suit schedule property was not the joint family and ancestral property and hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for partition and separate possession of their share. The said finding of the trial Court does not call for any interference by this Court. 27. Hence, in view of the above discussion, we answer the point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) The judgment and decree dated 02.11.2019, passed in O.S.No.12/2017, by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hirekerur is confirmed. iii) No order as to the cost. iv) The office is directed to send back the trial Court records along with copy of the judgment. - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1886-DB RFA No. 100555 of 2019 v) The office is directed to draw decree accordingly. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE VB/Ct-cmu/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6