JUDGMENT D. V. Shylendra Kumar, J. The second appeak is by the plaintiff in as No. 174/1984, whose suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits in respect of as many as 12 parcels of agriculture lands and one house property, had been substantially decreed, in the sense, except for one parcel of agriculture land in item No. 10, the suit was also declared that he was entitled to recover possession from the defendant No.2, but that decree having been reversed by the lower appellate Court in Regular Appeal No. 3811992 preferred by the 2nd defendant in the suit and the lower appellate Court having denied the half share in respect of several suit items, though had been decreed by the trial Court particularly indicating that the plaintiff was not entitled for any share in respect of suit items No.1, 3, 4, 6, 11 and 12 in terms of its judgment and decree dated 211.1996 this appeal by the plaintiff to get back the decree as originally granted by the trial Court. 2. The case of the plaintiff was that he is the grandson of one Nanjappa through Nanjappas pre-deceased daughter Channakka; that at the time of the death of his grandfather he was a minor that his grandfather Nanjappa and one Venkatappa are the sons of one Muniswamy and they had partitioned the family properties during their life time; that Nanjappa had no other heir and died in or around the year 1972 and the plaintiff being the sole heir to all the properties that had fallen to the shar2 of Nanjappa is entitled to succeed to all such properties of Nanjappa; that the suit properties are the family properties of Nanjappa and Venkatappa though been partitioned, remained in the joint possession of the parties and therefore, the plaintiffs entitlement of half share of Nanjappa as a sole successor of Nanjappa should be declared and defendants who are claiming under Venkatappa, the brother of Nanjappa, should be directed to hand over possession of half share of Nanjappa and decree to this effect and mesne profits also. 3. The defendants were the first wife of Venkatappa impleaded as defendant No.1 by name Kendamma and the son of Venkatappa through his second wife Munemma by name Muniyappa arrayed as 2nd defendant. 4. 3. The defendants were the first wife of Venkatappa impleaded as defendant No.1 by name Kendamma and the son of Venkatappa through his second wife Munemma by name Muniyappa arrayed as 2nd defendant. 4. While the 1st defendant, the 1st wife of Venkatappa through a statement, fully supported the claim of plaintiff, the 2nd defendant filed written statement contested the claim mainly by way of two pleas, firstly that the plaintiff was not a relative of Nanjappa at all to claim as a legal heir of Nanjappa and secondly, that no partition had taken place between Nanjappa and Venkatappa during their life time and therefore, the suit should be dismissed. 5. It is in the light of such pleadings• the trial Court had framed the following seven issues. 1. Whether plaintiff proves that Chinnakka is the daughter of Nanjappa? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is the legal heir to the property of Nanjappa described in the plaint schedule? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that Nanjappa acquired the suit schedule properties at a partition among himself and his brother Venkatappa ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of title and possession? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mesne suit is barred by limitation? 6. Whether the defendant proves that the suit is barred by limitation? 7. Whether the defendant No. 2 proves that he is the owner of the suit schedule properties? 8. To what decree or order? 6. Parties went to trial on such issues. On behalf of the plaintiff, five persons gave evidence including the plaintiff, who deposed as PW1 and the first defendant Kendalamma as PW5. Documentary evidence comprising of EX.P.1 to EX.P.21 were produced, prominent amongst which were EX.P.18 gift deed dated 3-7-1950 executed by Nanjappa and Venkatappa in favour of Muniyamma, mother of second defendant and second wife of Venkatappa; EX.P.19 another gift deed dated 16-3-1970 executed by Venkatappa- father of second defendant- in favour of Munivenkatamma, daughter of Kendamma - the first defendant in the suit; and Ex.P.20, sale deed dated 19-9-1957, executed by Nanjappa, grandfather of the plaintiff through his mother Chennakka, selling his half portion in suit item No. 10 in favour of the first sister of second defendant Munivenkatamma i.e., daughter of first defendant. 7. 7. On behalf of the defendants, second defendant deposed himself as DW-1 and documentary evidence Exs.D-1 to D-14 were got marked, which were mainly comprising of revenue extracts and the receipts for having paid land revenue in respect of the lands in question. 8. The trial Court on examination of the pleadings and the supporting material in the form of evidence and the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties, answered the first issue holding that the plaintiff has made out that he is the son of Channakka daughter of Nanjappa and being the legal heir of deceased Nanjappa, was entitled to the properties of Nanjappa as sole legal heir. The trial Court also held that the plaintiff was successful in making good his case that Nanjappa has acquired suit schedule properties and half share of the suit schedule properties being the share of Nanjappa, the plaintiff was entitled for such declaration and relief of recovery of possession. It was also held that the plaintiff was entitled for mesne profit and the first defendant having failed to make good his defence that the suit was barred by limitation and also that the second defendnat is the excusive owner of the suit schedule properties, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment and decree as prayed for. Except in respect of the suit item No. 10 and also house property which had already been gifted in terms of EX.P.18 by both Nanjappa and Venkatappa in favour of Muniyamma- second wife of Venkatappa. 9. It is significant to notice here that the first defendant i.e., the wife of Venkatappa, under whom the defendant was claiming right, supported the case of the plaintiff and also deposed in favour of the plaintiff indicating that there was prior partition as between Nanjappa and Venkatappa and they were enjoying their respective shares. Even the daughter of Kendamma Le., Munevenktamma, who had gifted some of the suit items to an extent of 1/3rd share of Nanjappa under EX.P.19 gift deed, had deposed in favour of the plaintff stating that there was a prior partition between her father Venkatappa and uncle Nanjappa; that her father Venkatappa had distributed his half share in the properties in favour of his first wife Muniyamma to an extent of 2/3rd of his share and the remaining 1/3rd share had been given to her under the gift deed EX.P19. The second defendant was not a legal heir of Nanjappa. These, coupled with the evidence of PW3 Thimmappa Shanubaug of the village- who has deposed that there was a prior partition between Nanjappa and Venkatappa and even one of the witnesses on behalf of the defendants also supported the case of the plaintiff stating that there was a prior partition between Nanjappa and Venkatappa. 10. It is in this state of affairs, aggrieved second defendant alone appealed in R.A. No. 38 of 1992, on the file of Principal Civil Judge at KGF, contending that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is contrary to law and against the evidence on record etc. In the light of such arguments, the Lower Appellate Court formulated the following points for its determination:- 1. Whether the plaintiff has proved that Nanjappa had a daughter by name Chinnakka and he is her son? 2. Whether he has proved that he suit properties had fallen to the share of Nanjappa in the partition between Nanjappa and Venkatappa ? 3. Whether the plaintiff entitled to succeed to the suit properties as the legal heir of Nanjappa ? 4. Whether the suit is in time? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as sought? 6. Whether the plaintiff entitled to recover possession of the suit properties from the defendants? 7. Whether the plaintiff entitled to mesne profits? 8. Whether the judgment and decree under appeal sustainable? 9. What order? 10. Sri K. V. Aravind, learned Counsel for the appellant- plaintiff would submit that the answer to point NO.2 which has been partly answered in favour of the plaintiff and partly answered in favour of the second defendant, caused the plaintiff to come up in this second appeal, as the• learned judge of the lower appellate Court while answering this point has excluded suit items 1, 3, 4, 6, 11 and 12 from the suit items, in respect of which had been the trial Court had granted decree in favour of the plaintiff. 11. In the light of this submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the examination in this appeal is to be confined to the answer given by the learned judge of the lower appellate Court on this point. 12. 11. In the light of this submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant, the examination in this appeal is to be confined to the answer given by the learned judge of the lower appellate Court on this point. 12. At the time of admission, this Court had formulated the following substantial questions of law for consideration in this second appeal: 1. Whether the lower appellate Court has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that item Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11 and 12 are not properties of Nanjappa ? 2. Whether there is any erroneous finding in respect of the gift deed - Ex.P. 18 ? 13. Appearing on behalf of the appellant Sri Aravind, learned Counsel, by drawing attention of the Court to the answer given by the lower appellate Court in respect of point NO.2 submits that the learned judge of the lower appellate Court has committed a serious error in law by applying different norms in respect of some suit items which have been excluded from the purview of decree as granted by the trial Court. Submission is that the learned judge of the lower appellate Court has committed serious error in law in concluding that the suit item Nos. 1,3,4, 6, 11 and 12 were not properties of Venkatappa. It is submitted that when once both the Courts below held that the plaintiff was the legal heir of Nanjappa, being his grandson through his predeceased daughter Channakka and when once the version of the plaintiff that there was a prior partition as between his grandfather and Venkatappa and each was enjoying their respective shares is accepted, no question of Nanjappa losing any of his properties, particularly when it is not in dispute that Venkatappa has predeceased Nanjappa and it was Nanjappa, who was in the vahivat of the properties though had been divided between the brothers and had continued to remain in joint possession. 14. 14. It is also submitted that the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court not have ignored the weighty evidence of PW1, PW2 and 5, who had virtually indicated that the half share of Venkatappa had been distributed between his second wife Muniyamma and daughter of first wife Munivenkatappa in the ratio of 2/3rd and l/3rd respectively and if so, what remained was only Nanjappas share and if Nanjappa had outlived Venkatappa, who has also taken care of the second defendant, who was a minor at the time of death of Venkatappa, there can be no way for the lower appellate Court to conclude that Nanjappa lost his half share in any manner and it is therefore submitted that the judgment and decree as altered by the lower appellate Court is not tenable and the judgment and decree as passed by the trial Court should be restored. 15. On the other had, Sri N. Murali, learned Counsel for the second respondents-defendant has vehementrly urged that the manner in which the properties were dealt with by Venkatappa, particularly in terms of EX.P.18 and 19 (gift deeds) would indicate that Venkatappa had dealt with the suit items 1, 3, 10 and 12 as his own properties and if so, the plaintiff, claiming through Nanjappa, cannot stake his claim for half share in these properties. Submission is that whether or not Venkatappa had got half share in these properties in the family partition, nevertheless Venkatappa having treated these suit items as his own properties and that having not been objected to, there cannot be any claim by any person like the plaintiff who is a person claiming as legal heir of Nanjappa and if Nanjappa himself had not disputed the transaction under EX.P18 and 19 during his life time, it is not open to the plaintiff to question the correctness or otherwise of the recitals in these documents. 16. I have examined the rival submissions. 16. I have examined the rival submissions. Though this Court had framed the first substantial question of law excluding suit item No. 10, as no question arose in respect of suit item No. 10 in the second appeal for the reason that the trial Court itself had excluded this suit item from the judgment and decree to be granted in favour of the plaintiff and the plaintiff having not appealed against this part of the judgment and decree and it is only the second defendant who had appealed, that part of the decree of the trial Court denying any share in suit item No. 10 becomes final and conclusive and may not be necessary to examine the validity of the judgment of the lower appellate Court which has dealt with suit item No. 10 also though there was no need for the lower appellate Court to deal with this issue. 17. In so far as other suit items are concerned, the learned judge of the lower appellate Court for excluding the right of Nanjappa in these suit items, has mainly relied upon the revenue entries and the recitals in EX.P.18 and 19. In so far as the revenue entries are concerned, while some revenue entries stand exclusively in the name of Nanjappa and in some others, Nanjappas name did not figure, and particularly in respect of some suit items like 4, 6 and 11, the plaintiff was denied a decree only because of revenue entries stood in the name of third parties and neither in the name of Nanjappa nor in the name of Venkatappa or persons claiming under either of them. 18. For the purpose of appreciating as to what had been gifted under ExP.18 is an important piece of document to decide the controversy in issue, it is no doubt executed by both Nanjappa and Venkatappa and does not make any reference to any either partition in the family, but one significant aspect is that what was gifted was only half portion in the items mentioned in the schedule to the documents, which were in respect of suit items 1, 2, 5, la, 12 and house property in EX.P.19. The gift deed in fact was in the circumstances that Venkatappa was marrying the done as second wife during the life time of his first wife and to assure that she was not denied share in the properties and also that she was being compensated for the jewelery which had been promised to her etc. But, what was gifted was only half portion. If an contended, Venkatappa and Nanjappa were joint at that time, there cannot be any reason as to why half portion of the entire joint family property was sought to be given through the gift deed to the second wife of Venkatappa alone. On the other hand the version on behalf of the plaintiff is that what was gifted was only the half portion of Venkatappas share and that is why in respect of items under the schedule it is indicated that half portion alone was gifted. This document does not establish as to whether there was any prior partition or otherwise. But one thing will be clear that in so far as items gifted under this deed are concerned, they undoubtedly bind both Nanjappa and Venkatappa and persons claiming under them. Therefore, to this extent, the claim of the plaintiff cannot be decreed and it does not necessarily prove that Venkatappa had gifted under this deed is his share in the family properties. The fact that there was a partition before is established by oral evidence of witnesses and even subsequent document such as EX.P.20 sale deed of the year 1967. 19. However, the recital in EX.P.19 again indicated that Venkatappa is gifting some part of the properties mentioned in the schedule in favour of his daughter through the first wife. This daughter, who has deposed that her father Venkatappa had distributed his half share as between his step-mother Muniyamma and herself. This document also was executed during the life time of Nanjappa, who has not shown any objection to the same during his life time. It is for this reason, I hold that while these documents are binding on Nanjappa and therefore on the plaintiff, who is claiming only through him, it does not necessarily mean Nanjappa did not have any other properties nor had he lost properties or portions of properties, which had not passed under ExP 18 and 19. 20. It is for this reason, I hold that while these documents are binding on Nanjappa and therefore on the plaintiff, who is claiming only through him, it does not necessarily mean Nanjappa did not have any other properties nor had he lost properties or portions of properties, which had not passed under ExP 18 and 19. 20. With regard to the reasoning of the Learned judge of the lower appellate Court that Nanjappa did not have any right, title, interest totally in respect of suit item Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 11 and 12, only because of the revenu entries, that line of reasoning cannot be accepted, as it is well settled that revenue entries are not one which confer title on persons nor divest title, they are only evidence if at all to support the claim for title and based on the presumption in favour of the person whose name figures in the entries to be in possession of the particular property. But, in so far as the possession is concerned, the evidence on record indicates that virtually the possession was joint, if not earlier, at least after the death of Venkatappa - father of second defendant. In fact the second defendant has deposed that his uncle Nanjappa was looking after the properties and had taken care of and educated them and brought them up also and therefore was virtually in possession and management of all the properties, whether of the share of Venkatappa or his own share. This position remained till the death of Nanjappa. Immediately after which, succession opened in respect of his share. Therefore, by enjoyment of possession, if Nanjappa is not excluded from his share of properties, which had been shared in half of all the family properties, that title which he had in these properties remained intact and with him and the learned judge of the lower appellate Court has committed an error, in law in concluding that Nanjappa did not have any such title only because of the revenue entries did not support this position. 21. 21. It should be noticed that the suit of the plaintiff was a person claiming under Nanjappa and as his legal heir and when once the Courts below had accepted that the plaintiff was the legal heir of Nanjapa and also that the suit was within the period of limitation, the question of limitation having been answered in favour of the plaintiff, it dons not matter in whose name the revenue entries stand for the relief of recovery of possession based on title. When once it is to be declared that on the death of Nanjappa, the plaintiff succeeds to all the properties which were held by Nanjappa at the time of his death and assuming that the second defendant himself was in possession of the properties either actually or in terms of the revenue entries at the time of the suit was filed, the plaintiff can definitely succeed to the relief of recovery of possession based on title, once the suit is held to be one within the period of limitation, that relief cannot be denied in favour of the plaintiff as has been done by the learned judge of the lower appellate Court by holding that the revenue entries did not stand in the name of Nanjappa and therefore in respect of such of suit items where the revenue entries did not figure the name of Nanjappa, the suit will have to be dismissed. This reasoning is not property and not in consonance with the principles of law and therefore the first substantial question as framed for examination is to be answered in favour of the appellant plaintiff and against the respondent second defendant. 22. However, that is not the end, as EX.P.1S and 19 gift deeds and ExP20 sale deed, executed by Nanjappa during his life time, are transactions which are carried on by Nanjappa or Venkatappa during their life time and when both of them living. Whether the properties transacted therein belong to the exclusive share of one or the other to the extent that the properties mentioned therein have been disposed of under respective deeds bind the parties claiming under those persons and both the plaintiff and the second defendant. Whether the properties transacted therein belong to the exclusive share of one or the other to the extent that the properties mentioned therein have been disposed of under respective deeds bind the parties claiming under those persons and both the plaintiff and the second defendant. But the same logic cannot be applied, as contended by Sri Murali, learned Counsel for the second defendant that because of this, in respect of all the properties which the second defendants father Venkatappa had indicated to be his also to be taken his properties, though not actually deposed of under any of these instruments, but retained for himself. I do not accept this submission for the reason that by mere description that what had been retained was a property belonging to one or the other, does not necessarily either confer title or divest title, as brothers had been virtually enjoying the properties together during their life time. While their action binds third parties in whose favour the instruments had been executed and that cannot be questioned in a suit filed in the year 1983 by a person claiming as legal heir of Nanjappa, at the same time, the documents also do not necessarily have the effect of divesting the title of Nanjappa, which he otherwise had in the suit properties. It is for this reason, I have to hold that the second question framed by this Court is to be answered in favour of the plaintiff and to hold that the lower appellate Court has not properly appreciated the effect of Ex.P. 18 to conclude that the effect of Ex.P18 can be applied in respect of other suit items also. However, I have already held that Ex.P 18 and 19, so also Ex.P 20, bind both the parties even after holding that the modification of the judgment and decree of the trial Court by the lower appellate Court was not justified to the extent indicated in this judgment, the decree of the trial Court still requires to be modified and it is declared that the decree granted in favour of the plaintiff by the trial Court is restored, excluding the properties covered under ExP18, 19 and 20. In respect of other suit schedule properties, which have remained and available to the family or to the members of the families of Nanjappa and Venkatappa, the plaintiff is entitled to half share of Nanjappa in the family properties having succeeded to his entire share. However, it is made clear that the decree for recovery of possession in respect of all suit items binds only the second defendant and person claiming under the second defendant. This observation is made for the reason that the lower appellate Court had noticed that in respect of some items of suit schedule properties revenue entries show the name of other person, other than either that of Nanjappa or Venkatappa or even their legal heirs. The decree for recovery of possession does not bind other persons other than the second defendant or persons claiming under second defendant. It is also made clear that the decree is for half share of the suit items after excluding the properties which had already been passed on under Ex.P18, 19 and 20 and to the extent mentioned therein. In respect of the remaining suit schedule properties, the plaintiff is entitled for declaration that he has got half share and entitled for recovery of possession. 23. Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above. Parties to bear their respective costs.