Judgment :- 1. This second appeal by the defendants is against the judgment in RA.207/97 confirming the judgment of the trial court in O.S.50/87 dated 26.11.1997 decreeing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff and directing division of properties to assign unto her half share and also declaring the sale in favour of the 8th defendant-Malathi as not binding on her. 2. Heard Mr. G.L. Vishwanath, learned counsel for the appellants, and learned designated senior advocate, Mr. Srivatsa for the respondent-plaintiff and perused records in supplementation thereto. It reveals: a) Respondent-Doddamma filed suit in 0.5.50/87 seeking a decree to divide the properties described in the schedule to assign unto her half share therein on the premise that Buddappa, her grandfather was tne propositus. He had three sons-Thimmappa, Thayappa and Junjappa. They lived as members of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and enjoyed the rights of coparcenery. However, Juniappa took his share and severed his relationship from the joint family and started living separately. Thimmappa and Thayappa lived jointly but did not take the properties in metes and bounds. b) Plaintiff claims Thayappa-third son of Buddappa left behind only her as his legal heir to succeed to his estate in the coparcenery property. He died 10 years prior to the filing of the suit, while her uncle, Thimmappa died two years prior to the filing of the suit. It is alleged, Thimmappa used to harass her and her mother and did not give them the benefit of joint family. Though she lived with them after marriage, life became miserable and she had to leave the joint family set up and live separately. Her paternal uncle, Thimmappa did all that was possible to deprive her of her share. However, on persistent demands, he promised to divide the properties, but there was no positive action. c) In the circumstances, she filed suit seeking division of properties on the assertive contention chat after the demise of Buddappa, the property became divisible amongst his three sons, viz., Thimmappa, Thayappa and Junjappa. Since Junjappa had walked out of the family, the property remained to be divided between Thimmappa and her father-Thayappa. Since Thayappa died leaving behind her as his legal heir, she was entitled to half share while her uncle-Thimmappa would get the remaining half share. Thus the suit filed by her seems to be a suit simpliciter for partition of the properties described in the schedule. Since Thayappa died leaving behind her as his legal heir, she was entitled to half share while her uncle-Thimmappa would get the remaining half share. Thus the suit filed by her seems to be a suit simpliciter for partition of the properties described in the schedule. d) To establish her cause of action, she averred land bearing Survey No.20 measuring 10 guntas, land in Survey No.17 measuring 19 guntas, land in Survey No.216 measuring 2 acres 12 guntas, land in Survey No.221 measuring 5 guntas and land in Survey No.49 measuring 32 guntas were acquired out of the original joint family properties. However, she admitted revenue records were changed in the name of Thimmappa. Regarding sale of a few of the schedule properties in the year 1986 by Thimmappa, she described it as a sham document without any lawful authority and sought a decree that it was not binding on her. As at the time of filing of the suit Thimmappa was not alive, she brought into the party array his legal heirs, viz., Murali, Lingappa, Chikkathimma and Venkatesh, his sons and one Malathi, purchaser of the property as defendants 1 to 8.