JUDGMENT The instant second appeal arises out of the judgment and award dated 15th October, 2004 in LAC Appeal No. 125 of 1998 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Bijapur, confirming the judgment and award passed by the Trial Court dated 29th November, 1997 in LAC No. 138 of 1984 on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur. 2. The grievance of the appellant in the instant second appeal is that, house property bearing VPC No. 122/a situate at Gani Village at Basavan Bagewadi Taluk was notified and acquired by the State through the first respondent herein for public purpose, i.e., for submergence area of UKP at Narayanapura Reservoir, vide preliminary notification issued under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, which was published in the Karnataka Gazette on 12th August, 1982. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, after considering the relevant material available on record, has passed the award on 30th June, 1983, fixing the market value of the acquired land at the rate of Rs. 6,095.75. The claimant 2-appellant herein is the brother of deceased Shankreppa, who was claimant 1. It is the case of the appellant that, the said suit schedule opportunity was a joint family property and the same was sold in the year 1978 in favour of one Sri Amarappa, since deceased, now represented by his legal representatives as respondents 2(a) to (c) in the instant second appeal. The appellant being claimant 2 has filed the objections before the Land Acquisition Officer claiming that, he is entitled for half share in the joint family property on the ground that, the said property has been purchased by his father in the year 1941 and that, his father had two sons by name Sharurreppa-claimant 1 and Sri Ningappa-claimant 2-appellant herein. In view of the dispute between the claimants, the Land Acquisition Officer has referred the matter for adjudication before the II· Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. In view of the dispute between the claimants, the Land Acquisition Officer has referred the matter for adjudication before the II· Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bijapur under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, has discussed the evidence of the parties elaborately at paragraphs 10 and 11 of its judgment and recorded a finding at paragraph 12, holding that, the objection filed by the appellant-claimant 2 is overlooked and that, the claimant 1 or the legal representatives of the deceased claimant 1, i.e., 1(a) to (c) are entitled to receive the entire compensation in respect of the acquired house property. Assailing the correctness of the said judgment, the appellant herein-claimant 2 has filed the appeal in LAC Appeal No. 125 of 1998 on the file of IV Additional District Judge, Bijapur. The said appeal had come up for consideration before the Lower Appellate Court and the Lower Appellate Court, after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence exhaustively at paragraph 15 of its· judgment and other relevant material available on file, has given a specific finding at paragraph 17 holding that, the legal representatives of the deceased claimant 1 are entitled to receive the entire compensation amount of the acquired house property and thereby rejected the claim of the appellant herein and confirmed the same. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and award passed by both the Courts below, appellant herein felt necessitated to present the instant second appeal. 3. The principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for appellant, Sri Ashok R. Kalyana Shetty is that, both the Courts below have committed grave error much less irregularity for the reason that, it is undisputed that, the property in question has been purchased by the late father of the appellant and the said property is a joint family property. He further submitted that, the said property has been notified in the name of the elder brother of appellant, he being the 'karta' of the joint family property and that, this fact has been completely overlooked by both the Courts below and both the Courts below have proceeded on the ground that, the deceased Shankarappa, who is the brother of the appellant or his legal representative, is entitled to receive the compensation amount of the acquired property. The said reasoning given by both the Courts below cannot be sustained and therefore, the impugned judgment and award passed by both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 4. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for appellant and learned Counsel appearing for respondents. 5. After careful perusal of the judgment and award passed by both the Courts below, it emerges on the face of the same that, both the Courts below have not committed any error much less material irregularity. It is significant to note that, the Reference Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, has specifically referred that, the property in question has been notified in the name of deceased Shankreppa in the notification and after the death of deceased Shankreppa, the same has been entered in the name of Parvatevva, who is the wife of the deceased Shankreppa as per the Panchayat records in respect of VPC Nos. 126 and 143. Therefore, the Reference Court, after looking from all these angles has observed that, it cannot be said that, the disputed house was the joint family property of Shankreppa and appellant herein and that, the joint family properties were submerged in Upper Krishna Project and the compensation amount was awarded and the wife of deceased Shankreppa - Parvatevva alone has received the compensation. Further, the Reference Court observed that, though the claimant 2 contended that, the disputed house is the joint family property, he has failed to substantiate his right of ownership with the deceased Shankreppa by producing sufficient material to establish that, deceased Shankreppa was the 'karta' of the joint family property and that, he has got half share in the said property. Further, the said Court observed that, on the other hand, P.W. 1, the L.R. of the deceased claimant 1 has brought on record that, the disputed property was the exclusive property of Shankreppa and accordingly he has sold the said house to his deceased father Sri Amarappa Prashanna Mulagund-second respondent in this second appeal. Further, the said Court observed that, on the other hand, P.W. 1, the L.R. of the deceased claimant 1 has brought on record that, the disputed property was the exclusive property of Shankreppa and accordingly he has sold the said house to his deceased father Sri Amarappa Prashanna Mulagund-second respondent in this second appeal. The Reference Court, after giving a specific finding on the basis of the relevant material available on file and after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence, has declared that, the claimant 1-Amarappa Prashanna Mulagund or his legal representatives alone are entitled to receive the entire compensation amount The said view taken by the Reference Court has been confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court after elaborately discussing the oral and documentary evidence at paragraph 15 of its judgment and by giving cogent reasons at paragraph 16 of its judgment. Further, the Lower Appellate Court has specifically referred that, the appellant-claimant 2 in his claim statement or in his evidence, has not stated that, the said sale was not for joint family necessity or for the benefit of the estate and his claim statement and evidence is completely silent in this regard, but on the other hand, there is recital in the Exhibit P. 2 that, the said sale was for the family necessity. In the absence of any such claim by claimant 2appellant herein, a legal right accrued to the deceased claimant 1, represented by his legal representatives 1(a) to (c) [respondents 2(a) to (c) in this second appeal] cannot be taken away by mere making statement in the claim statement that, it is a joint family property and sale deed executed by his brother is not binding on him in respect of his half share. Therefore, the Lower Appellate Court was of the considered view that, for the aforesaid reasons, the claimant 2-appellant herein is not entitled to get half share in the compensation amount of the acquired property. Further, after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Lower Appellate Court has recorded a specific finding by assigning cogent reasons and confirmed the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Further, after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Lower Appellate Court has recorded a specific finding by assigning cogent reasons and confirmed the judgment passed by the Trial Court. In view of concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below, after appreciation and re-appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and other relevant material available on file, interference by this Court is not justifiable nor I find any good grounds to entertain the instant second appeal. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as stated above, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as devoid of merits.