JUDGMENT MOHAN SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.—This appeal is filed by the original defendants in O.S. No. 144/2003 against the judgment and decree dated 10.11.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Harihar, in the said suit. 2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Court below. 3. The genealogy of the joint family of the parties is as under: Veeranagowda (dead) Doddabasappa (dead) Sannabasappa (dead) Keppabasappa (dead) Rajappa Manjappa Karibasappa (Plaintiff-1) (Plaintiff-2) (Plaintiff-3) Veeranagowda (dead) Channappa Gowda Bairappa (dead) (Rudrappa) (Deft.-2) Widow (Mallamma) Rathnamma (Deft.-1) Veeramma (Deft.-3) 4. Plaintiffs filed suit for partition and separate possession of the various items of the properties consisting of agricultural lands and residential houses. Veeranagowda is the propositus. According to the parties, Veeranagowda died prior to 1940. Veeranagowda had two sons, viz., Dodabasappa and Sannabasappa. Doddabasappa died leaving behind his only son Keppabasappa. He died in the year 1990. The plaintiffs are the legal representatives of Keppabasappa. The defendants are the son and grand sons of Sannabasappa. 5. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiffs are claiming through Doddabasappa whereas the defendants are claiming through Sannabasappa. According to the plaintiffs, all the suit properties are the joint family properties, inasmuch as there was never a partition among the joint family members; since the properties in question are all the joint family members, they are liable to be divided among the parties to the suit. 6. The case of the defendants is that there was oral partition among Doddabasappa and Sannabasappa inter se about many years back immediately after the demise of Veeranagowda and consequently, Doddabasappa and Sannabasappa and after their death, their legal representatives are enjoying their respective properties allotted in their favour in the oral partition between Doddabasappa and Sarinabasappa. According to the defendants the plaintiffs as well as defendants are living separately to the exclusion of others and enjoying the properties separately. Thus, they denied the case of the plaintiffs in its entirety. 7. Based on the pleading of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Court below: (1) Whether plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of themselves and defendants? (2) Whether they are having half share in the suit schedule properties and they are entitled for the same by metes and bounds? (3) Whether defendants prove that there is already partition between Sannabasappa and Doddabasappa? (2) Whether they are having half share in the suit schedule properties and they are entitled for the same by metes and bounds? (3) Whether defendants prove that there is already partition between Sannabasappa and Doddabasappa? (4) Whether the suit of plaintiffs is barred by law of limitation? (5) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition and possession of their ½ share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds? (6) What decree or order? 8. In order to prove their case, the plaintiffs examined two witnesses and got marked 147 documents, whereas defendants examined six witnesses on their behalf and got marked 16 documents. On considering the material on record, the Court below decreed the suit for partition and separate possession. The defendants have filed this appeal against the said judgment and decree passed by the Court below. 9. Sri B. Rudragowda, learned advocate appearing for the appellants submits that the Court below has not appreciated the material on record in proper perspective, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice; that all the suit properties are enjoyed by the respective parties separately since 1936 onwards. The taxes are being paid separately. They are living separately in separate houses, Their names are shown in voters’ list separately. The entries in the revenue records stand in the name of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. As there was partition among the parties inter se, the plaintiffs and defendants are independently enjoying their respective shares separately. Some of the properties are independently sold by both plaintiffs as well as defendants to the third parties, meaning thereby that the parties have acted on their own in respect of ail their respective properties; occupancy rights are granted in favour of the defendant Bairappa in respect of the property bearing Sy. No. 25/1 and Form No. 10 is issued individually; the plaintiffs as well as defendants were re-granted certain of the lands separately and are enjoying such lands separately. Some of the lands are standing in the name of the junior members of the family, which itself goes to show that there was partition and that they are enjoying the properties separately. Some of the lands are standing in the name of the junior members of the family, which itself goes to show that there was partition and that they are enjoying the properties separately. The sum and substance of the arguments of Sri Rudragowda is that there was partition by metes and bounds among Doddabasappa and Sannabasappa about more than 60 years back and, therefore, it is not open for the plaintiffs to pray for reopening of the partition. Per contra, Sri Ram Bhat, Learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents argued in support of the judgment of the Court below by contending that It is not uncommon under Hindu Law to hold separate properties by joint family members; merely because the entries are made in the name of the members of the joint family separately, it cannot be said that there was division of the properties by metes and bounds. The names of some of the members are entered in the revenue records in respect of each of the properties for the sake of convenience. Since there is nothing on record to show that there was a partition among the parties by metes and bounds, according to him, the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. From the aforesaid contentions raised by the learned advocates appearing on both sides, the only point that arises for our consideration in this appeal is as under: “Whether the Court below is justified in holding that the properties in question are the joint family properties and that the same are liable to be divided among the parties to the suit?” 11. It is by now well settled that it is open to the members of the co-parcenery to arrange amicably separate possession and enjoyment of the family properties without effecting partition or disruption of the joint family, but at the same time whether the co-owners in exclusive possession of different portions of joint family property held the same in the partition or under an agreement as to the possession, depend upon the intention of the parties which has to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. Where direct evidence of intention is available, there is no difficulty in determining the question. Where direct evidence of intention is available, there is no difficulty in determining the question. In cases where such direct evidence of intention is wanting, the fact that the members have been living separately and enjoying the properties, separately may be taken into consideration in arriving at the conclusions but that is not conclusive. A provisional arrangement which for some reason continued for a long time without objections doesn’t take away its provisional character and make it permanent. There must be some other evidence indicating that the parties have not been living separately under a permanent arrangement or partition. It is also by now well settled that to prove the factum of partition between the brothers, the entries in the record of rights maintained in the official course of business is a relevant piece of evidence. It is not necessary that the partition should be affected by registered partition deed. It could be even oral also. 12. In the light of the aforementioned well settled principles of law, the evidence on record is considered by this Court. Item Nos. 1 to 13 of the suit schedule are agricultural lands. Items 14 to 16 are residential houses. All the properties are situated at Dodderi village, Honalli Taluk, Davanagere district. According to the plaintiffs, all the agricultural lands, that is, item Nos. 1 to 14 are the joint family properties and hence, are liable to be divided among the parties. Item Nos. 1 to 3 of the suit schedule are the agricultural lands which are sub-divided in Sy. No. 15/P. They are measuring 30 guntas, 28 guntas and 10 guntas respectively. It is not in dispute that Sy. No. 15 is Patelki Omli and (inam land), Sy. No. 15 totally measures 25 acres. The said land was cultivated by 28 persons on inam basis. All such 28 persons filed application before the Tahsildar for re-grant in the year 1982. The Tahsildar after holding enquiry took decision to grant portions of the properties to such 28 persons independently who were in possession of the property, in accordance with their actual possession of the agricultural land in Sy. No. 15, Keppa Basappa the father of the plaintiffs, Byrappa the husband of the Defendant No. l and Defendant No. 3 - Veeramma filed separate applications for re-grant of the respective portions of the property over which they were in possession. No. 15, Keppa Basappa the father of the plaintiffs, Byrappa the husband of the Defendant No. l and Defendant No. 3 - Veeramma filed separate applications for re-grant of the respective portions of the property over which they were in possession. The Tahsildar by his order dated 30.7.1982 (Ex. P2) as aforementioned re-granted various properties including Sy. No. 15 to the persons, who are in actual possession of the property. The plaintiffs father namely Kade Mane Basappa @ Keppa Basappa was re-granted 28 guntas of land in Sy. No. 15. The husband of Defendant No. l and Defendant No. 3 collectively were granted 30 guntas of land in Sy. No. 15. Since the date of re-grant that is, since 1982, the properties are standing separately in their respective names. From the above, it is clear that the plaintiffs father as well as the Defendants 1 and 3 filed applications separately for the respective portions of the property over which they were in possession and the Tahsildar has re-granted such portion of land in their favour, in accordance with the respective possession separately. Thus, it is clear that item Nos. 1 to 3 are re-granted in the name of the plaintiffs as well as the Defendants separately by the Tashildar, Item Nos. 4 and 5 of the suit schedule property are portions of Sy. No. 20/P. Sy. No. 20/P measures totally 2 acres 25 guntas. The same is sub-divided into 20/P1 and 20/P2 that is item Nos. 4 and 5 respectively. Ex. D.10 clearly reveals that Sy. No. 20 measuring 2 acres 25 guntas was granted by the Government in favour of Sannabasappa, that is propositus of defendants prior to 1929. Ex. P10 speaks that katha is changed. The material on record reveals that the same was granted in favour of Sannabasappa in the year 1927-28. Ex. P10 further reveals that katha was changed in the name of Veerannagouda @ Veerappa, the first son of Sannabasappa as back as on 8.12.1939. Since then, the name of Veerappa is continued in the revenue records in respect of Sy. No. 20. Veeranagouda @ Veerappa is none other than the father-in-law of defendant No. l, father of defendant No. 2 and uncle of defendant No. 3. Since then, the name of Veerappa is continued in the revenue records in respect of Sy. No. 20. Veeranagouda @ Veerappa is none other than the father-in-law of defendant No. l, father of defendant No. 2 and uncle of defendant No. 3. Thus, it is clear that the property was granted in favour of Sannabasappa, that is, the propositus of defendants and the same is inherited by the defendants exclusively all through since 1938 till this day. The entries are standing separately in the name of the defendants. Ex. P30 to Ex. P35 are entries in the revenue records showing the name of father of defendant No. 2 over Sy. No. 20. So also, Ex. P36 clearly reveals that the name of father of defendant No. 2 - Veerappa stands in the revenue records. Ex. P37 and 38 reveal the names of defendants Rathnamma w/o Byrappa, Mallamma and Veeramma w/o Chennappa Gowda, after the death of Veerappa @ Veerannagowda. Item No. 6 in Sy. No. 33/1 measures 2 acres 35 gurttas. It is curious to note that the said property bearing Sy. No. 33/1 was earlier held by father of the plaintiffs namely Keppa Basappa. He sold his share in the land in favour of one Mr. P. Basappa and Mr.Chennappa. The said P. Basappa and Chennappa sold the said land to Byrappa, that is, the husband of the defendant No. l under registered sale deed. Ex. P61 is the sale deed executed in favour of Byrappa, husband of defendant No. l. It is relevant to note that father of the plaintiffs himself was a witness to the said sale deed - Ex. P61 dated 16.5.1982. Since the year 1962, the name of husband of defendant No. l and thereafter, the name of defendant No. l appears in the revenue records. From the above, it is amply clear that even plaintiffs’ father had understood that the parties were living separately by dividing the properties by metes and bounds. In the course of cross-examination of P.W.I -Ex. P61 was confronted and he states that his father’s signature was taken without informing the contents and it is a false document. P.W.I was aged about 37 years, at the time of his deposition. In the course of cross-examination of P.W.I -Ex. P61 was confronted and he states that his father’s signature was taken without informing the contents and it is a false document. P.W.I was aged about 37 years, at the time of his deposition. The document is executed on 16.5.1962, that is, about 38 years prior to recording his deposition which means that P.W.I was not yet born at the time of executing the sale deed - Ex. P61. Moreover Ex. P61 document is 30 years old and the presumption is in favour of the due execution of the sale deed. If really there was no partition among the family members, there was no reason for father of the plaintiffs to sell the property in favour of Basappa and Chennappa, who in turn had sold the property in favour of husband of Defendant No. l. For the said sale deed as aforementioned, plaintiffs’ father was a signatory as a witness. Item Nos. 7 to 9 are sub-divisions of survey Nos. 38/P. The said Sy. No. 38 was also a (umbli) inam land. Under the very document, Ex. P2 mentioned supra dated 30.7.1982, Sy. No. 38 is also re-granted in favour of various persons including the plaintiffs’ and defendants’. The plaintiffs’ father Keppa Basappa @ Kademane Basappa was re-granted 1 acre 25 guntas of land in Sy. No. 38 and whereas defendant No. 3 is re-granted an area of I acre 24 guntas and the husband of defendant No. 1 was granted 1 acre 24 guntas. The said.; re-grant was also on the basis of actual possession of the respective parties. The Tahsildar on the basis of actual possession has re-granted various bits in Sy. No. 38 in favour of certain of the persons including the father of the plaintiffs and respective husband of defendant Nos. 1 and 3. Since the date of re-grant that is, since 1982, the parties are enjoying those bits of lands separately. All the parties had filed separate applications for re-grant based on actual possession and their applications were considered. Re-grants were made separately in favour of aforementioned persons. Thus, it cannot be said that item Nos. 7 to 9 are joint family properties. Item Nos. 10 and 11 are the sub-divisions of Sy. No. 72/2. The said lands stand in the name of father of defendant No. 3 – Channappa Gowda (deceased). Exs. Re-grants were made separately in favour of aforementioned persons. Thus, it cannot be said that item Nos. 7 to 9 are joint family properties. Item Nos. 10 and 11 are the sub-divisions of Sy. No. 72/2. The said lands stand in the name of father of defendant No. 3 – Channappa Gowda (deceased). Exs. P95 to P101 clearly reveal that the name of father of defendant No. 3 - Channappa Gowda (deceased) is standing since 1964 till this day. Though according to the defendants, father of defendant No. 3 has purchased the property from Rudrappa, there is no material to that effect. But the fact remains that the name of father of defendant No. 3 continuously appears in the revenue records right from 1964 till this day. The taxes are being paid separately by defendant No. 3 in respect of the said properties. Item No. 12 is Sy. No. 78/3 measuring 2 acres 5 guntas. The said properties stand in the name of propositus of the defendants and thereafter, Khata was changed in favour of first son namely Veerannagouda @ Veerappa, that is, father of defendant No. 2 and father-in-law of defendant No. l. This change was made as back as in the year 1938. Since 1933, the name of father of defendant No. 2 and father-in-law of defendant No. l appears in the revenue records in respect of Sy. No. 78/3. Exs. P.111 to 114 and Exs.P.115 to 131 are the Record of rights pertaining to the said property which clearly reveal that the name of father-in-law of defendant No. l and father of defendant No. 2 continuously occur in the revenue records for more than 50-60 years. Item No. 13 is Sy. No. 25/lp measuring 3 acres 20 guntas. Byrappa, the husband of defendant No. l was cultivating the property as a tenant. He filed form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights in his name personally and the Tribunal on verification of the material on record granted occupancy rights in favour of Byrapa, the husband of defendant No. l in the year 1962 and consequently, mutation is made in the name of Byrappa in respect of the said property. A copy of Form No. 10 issued by the Land Tribunal is at Ex. D.11 which clearly shows that occupancy rights are granted in favour of Byrappa. Till this date, Exs. A copy of Form No. 10 issued by the Land Tribunal is at Ex. D.11 which clearly shows that occupancy rights are granted in favour of Byrappa. Till this date, Exs. P. 132 to 142 reveal the name of Byrappa over the said property. It is relevant to note that, in the year 1962, Byrappa was not the manager of the family, but he was a junior member of the family. 13. All the aforementioned facts clearly go to show that certain of the lands were separately granted or re-granted in favour of each of the parties. Even junior member was granted the land and even re-grant was made in favour of defendant No. 3 -Veeramma, junior most member. If really the family was joint, there was no reason as to why the plaintiffs’ father as well as defendants’ father filed applications for re-grant of the lands separately. The Tahsildar on spot inspection and on the basis of the actual possession of the various bits of the property by the respective parties has re-granted the lands at item Nos. 1 to 3 and 7 to 9 in respect of the plaintiffs’ and defendants’. 14. It is relevant to note that defendants themselves have divided their properties inter se by executing partition deed as per Ex. D,16 dated 13.6.1972. Ex. D.16 is registered partition effecting partition by meter and bounds among defendants inter se. Under the said partition, Malfamma, the widow of Chennappa @ Chennappa Gowda also got certain share in the property. Subsequently, the said Maliamma gifted all her properties in favour of her daughter defendant No. 3 -Veeramma. Ex. P41 is the copy of the gift deed which is marked as Ex. D1(also as Ex. P4). The very Ex. P41 (Ex. D1) clearly reveals that Maffamma has gifted Sy. No. 38, 20, 72/2 to 76/3 and a house No. 69/4 in favour of defendant No. 3. Sy. No. 38 and 20 were re-granted and granted lands respectively as aforementioned. Ex. P144 shows that Veeramma is residing separately in a separate house. Exs. P145 to Ex. P147 disclose that tax was demanded separately in respect of the aforementioned properties. Ex. D.3 is the voters list showing that the plaintiffs’ father was residing at katha No. 60 whereas defendants are living in katha No. 178. Ex. P144 shows that Veeramma is residing separately in a separate house. Exs. P145 to Ex. P147 disclose that tax was demanded separately in respect of the aforementioned properties. Ex. D.3 is the voters list showing that the plaintiffs’ father was residing at katha No. 60 whereas defendants are living in katha No. 178. So also, the other material on record clearly reveals that the parties are living separately since more than 50-60 years. 15. The plaintiffs as well as the defendants have acquired the properties separately. Some of the properties which were in occupation of the plaintiffs” and defendants’ were acquired by the State and the compensation was deposited. The plaintiffs as well as the defendants have received the compensation separately in respect of their properties. Thus, it is clear that plaintiffs as well as the defendants have exercised their right over their properties independently and exclusively to the exclusion of other parties. Each of them have paid taxes separately. The record of rights are standing in their respective names separately, since the year 1938 onwards. There was partition among the defendants inter se and each of the defendants have got separate properties. The material on record also reveals that the plaintiffs as well as the defendants have purchased the properties in their names and have sold certain of the properties separately. The inam lands are granted in favour of the plaintiffs and defendants separately. The occupancy rights are granted in favour of husband of defendant No. I alone. Certain of the lands are standing in the name of junior members since long time. All these factors would amply go to show that intention of the parties was to live separately, in real sense, i.e., by dividing the property by metes and bounds. They have been living separately since 1936 onwards and enjoying their respective portions separately. Though, there is no partition deed executed between Doddabasappa and Sannabasappa; the material on record clearly proves that the parties have partitioned the properties by metes and bounds. The voluminous and unimpeachable material on record reveals that the parties have divided their properties correctly and fully and are living separately. There is severance of status between the family members for more than 50-60 years prior to the filing of the suit. 16. All these facts are not properly considered by the Court below while coming to the conclusion. The voluminous and unimpeachable material on record reveals that the parties have divided their properties correctly and fully and are living separately. There is severance of status between the family members for more than 50-60 years prior to the filing of the suit. 16. All these facts are not properly considered by the Court below while coming to the conclusion. The reasons assigned and the conclusion arrived at by the Court below are not proper and correct. On re-appreciation of the material on record, we find that there is severance of status between the family members and there was division of properties by metes and bounds. The parties are accordingly living separately enjoying their respective shares, for more than 50 years. 17. In view of the same the Judgment and decree by the Court below cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same stands set aside. The appeal is allowed. The suit for partition and separate possession stands dismissed.