JUDGMENT K. Sreedhar Rao, J.--The appeal is filed against the Judgment and decree in RA 131 of 1990 on the file of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ranebennur arising out of the Judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 13 of 1988 on the file of Additional Munsiff, Renebannur. 2. The Appellants are the defendants. The first Respondent filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties. The admitted facts are, one Erappa is the propositus, he had two sons by name Mallappa and Shankarappa. The Plaintiff is the younger son of Mallappa. The husband of the first defendant is the eldest son of Mallappa. In other words, the first defendant is the sister-in-law of the Plaintiff. The defendants 2 to 6 are the children of deceased Basappa. Shankarappa, son of Erappa died issueless. The Plaintiff claims partition and possession of the suit property consisting of agricultural lands. The defendants contended that there was an earlier partition between Plaintiff and his brother Basappa in the year 1965. The suit property (1)(b) is the exclusive property granted by the Land Tribunal in favour of the first defendant. It is said that properties have been partitioned. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit. 3. The trial Court rejects the contention of the defendants about earlier partition in the year 1965 holds that the family of the Plaintiff and defendants continued to be joint and granted the relief of partition declaring 1/2 share to the Plaintiff including the property shown in Schedule 1(B) which is claimed to be the self acquired property of the first defendant. The first appellate Court has confirmed the findings in the Judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal. 4. It is the contention of the defendants that the lease was obtained by Basappa from Uttaradimutt after partition with the Plaintiff. Therefore the lease hold rights obtained by Basappa and later on occupancy rights obtained by first defendant constitutes an individual property and not liable for partition. In this regard, I find the trial Court has dealt with the documentary and oral evidence. According to mutation entries of the year 1956 at Ex.P.6 shows that Shankarappa, the uncle of the Plaintiff had taken the lease of the disputed land. In this regard, I find the trial Court has dealt with the documentary and oral evidence. According to mutation entries of the year 1956 at Ex.P.6 shows that Shankarappa, the uncle of the Plaintiff had taken the lease of the disputed land. In the Form No. 7 filed by the first defendant it is declared that the land is under cultivation for the past 50 years. As on the date of suit, first defendant is shown to be 48 years that means to say that even prior to her birth and prior to her marriage with Basappa, the land was being cultivated by the ancestors of the Plaintiff. In view of the fact that the tenancy is a family tenancy and after rejecting the theory of prior partition, the trial Court has granted the relief of partition in all the suit schedule properties. The appreciation of facts and evidence and the conclusions drawn by the appellate Court in this regard is sound and proper. In Balawwa v. Hasanbi ILR 2000 Kar. 4809, the Supreme Court has held that the Land Tribunal has no jurisdiction to grant relief of partition and it is within the domain of the Civil Court to grant the relief of partition. When a question arises in a partition suit whether the grant was an exclusive grant or to the benefit of the family, necessarily the Civil Court has jurisdiction to go into the matter to find out whether the tenancy was joint tenancy or an individual tenancy. In a state of harmonious cordial relationship in the members of the family, when the eldest member of the family makes an application for grant of occupancy rights, it would not be expected of the junior members to make separate applications, unless a rival claim has been made and adjudicated by the Land Tribunal, it does not preclude the members of the family to agitate the matter in a partition suit and to seek a share in the agricultural lands which are subject matter of grant by the Land Tribunal. In that view, I find no error of law committed by the appellate Court in understanding the law and in evaluating the evidence and facts, the conclusions drawn are sound and proper. No merit in the appeal. No substantial questions of law involved. Appeal is dismissed.