ORDER S.N. Satyanarayana, J. 1. The 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 64/1994 on the file of Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Koppal, has come up in this revision petition impugning the order dated 21.11.2011 regarding maintainability in M.A. No. 4/2011, on the file of District Court, Koppal. The brief facts leading to this revision petition are that the revision petitioner is 2nd defendant in O.S. No. 64/1994 which was filed by the children of Hanumappa Kolli seeking partition in respect of two agricultural lands bearing Sy. No. 76/K measuring 3 acres 30 guntas and Sy. No. 67/K measuring 5 acres 16 guntas situated at Danakanadoddi village in Koppal taluk and district. In the said suit the 1st defendant was Hanumappa Kolli and 2nd defendant was the petitioner herein. It is seen that the said suit is filed immediately after the 1st defendant sold land bearing Sy. No. 76/K in favour of 2nd defendant for valuable consideration of Rs.37,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 10.8.1994. Within few days the sale deed was executed, the suit is filed for partition. 2. The suit in O.S. No. 64/1994 is filed on 29.08.1994 i.e., immediately after the execution of sale deed dated 10.08.1994 by the father of plaintiffs Sri Hanumappa Kolli, first defendant in the Court below seeking partition in all the three properties of the family including the property which is sold in favour of petitioner herein who is second defendant in the said suit. The suit came to be allowed in part in awarding share to plaintiffs only in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 67/K measuring to an extent of 5 acres 16 guntas and in the house property. So far as the land in Sy. No. 76/K measuring to an extent of 3 acres and 30 guntas is concerned, the suit was dismissed holding that the sale deed dated 10.08.1994 executed in favour of second respondent is for family necessity. The judgment and decree in O.S. No. 64/1994 was taken up in appeal by plaintiffs in R.A. No. 10/2000 wherein they sought for share in Sy. No. 76/K by setting aside the decree of trial Court in accepting the sale deed dated 10.08.1994 is for family necessity. The said appeal was accordingly allowed and share was granted to plaintiffs is Sy. No. 76/K also, who were appellants in the said proceeding. No. 76/K by setting aside the decree of trial Court in accepting the sale deed dated 10.08.1994 is for family necessity. The said appeal was accordingly allowed and share was granted to plaintiffs is Sy. No. 76/K also, who were appellants in the said proceeding. The judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 10/2000 dated 17.10.2001 was not challenged by first defendant Hanumappa Kolli, it is only the second defendant Ningappa Kushtagi who is petitioner herein challenged the same by filing R.S.A. No. 899/2001 which subsequently came to be dismissed by judgment dated 26.06.2007 in which a review petition was filed in R.P. No. 428/2007 which also came to be dismissed by order dated 04.11.2007. 3. With this it is seen that FDP is initiated by respondents herein in FDP No. 9/2010 wherein the final decree is drawn on 20.7.2011 in dividing both the properties i.e., Sy. No. 76/K into 7 parts and Sy. No. 67/K into six parts for the reason that the share of Hanumappa Kolli is 1/7th in Sy. No. 76/K which he had sold in favour of the 2nd defendant. Therefore the 2nd defendant has that one share which has fallen to the share of Hanumappa Kolli and so far as Sy. No. 67/K not being part of the sale deed dated 10.8.1994, the share in that property will not devolve upon the purchaser, which will get divided among the children of Hanumappa Kolli. Therefore each one of them get 1/6th share instead of 1/7th share. That finding of the final decree proceeding was under challenge in M.A. No. 4/2011 which came to be dismissed by order dated 21.11.2011 on the ground that an appeal is not maintainable as against the said finding of the final decree Court which is sought to be revised in this proceeding. 4. In this proceeding the purchaser of the property from Hanumappa Kolli is the revision petitioner and all the children of Hanumappa Kolli are the respondents. The one and the only point which arise for consideration in this petition is, whether final decree Court was justified in awarding 1/7th share of Hanumappa Kolli in Sy. No. 76/K only in favour of petitioner herein who is second defendant in the original suit as purchaser of the said property from Hanumappa Kolli under sale deed dated 10.8.1994. So far as property bearing Sy. No. 76/K only in favour of petitioner herein who is second defendant in the original suit as purchaser of the said property from Hanumappa Kolli under sale deed dated 10.8.1994. So far as property bearing Sy. No. 67/Kis concerned, since it was not the subject matter of the sale deed, whether final decree Court was justified in holding that the petitioner is not entitled to the share of Hanumappa Kolli in the said property. This point is required to be answered in this proceeding and in this petition it is also required to be answered as to whether the petitioner herein is justified in seeking revision of the order of FDP Court in FDP No. 9/2010. 5. In this proceeding what is not in dispute is that Hanumappa Kolli was karta of his joint family consisting of himself and his children. It is further not in dispute that the said family had in all two agricultural Lands. One land bearing Sy. No. 76/K measuring 3 acres 30 guntas and another land bearing Sy. No. 67/K, measuring 5 acres 16 guntas, both situated at Danakanadoddi village of Koppal taluk and district. 6. It is further not in dispute that in the suit filed by the children of Hanumappa Kolli what was awarded to his share in agricultural lands is 1/7th in both properties. If they are put together, the right of Hanumappa Kolli in the suit schedule property is to the extent of 1 acre 13 guntas (i.e., 1/7th share in 3 acres 30 guntas in Sy. No. 76/K + and 1/7th share in 5 acres 16 guntas in Sy. No. 67/K,totally measuring 9 acres 6 guntas of agricultural lands). Since Hanamappa Kolli had assured the petitioner that he is the karta of the joint family and absolute owner of the property is having right to sell the same in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner by paying full sale consideration had purchased land bearing Sy. No. 67/K measuring 3 acre 30 guntas. Therefore he is entitled to get his share in not only the land bearing Sy. No. 67/K measuring 3 acre 30 guntas. Therefore he is entitled to get his share in not only the land bearing Sy. No. 76/K in respect of which the absolute sale deed is executed in his favour and also from other properties in which Hanumappa Kolli has share by applying the theory of equitable distribution of assets available under partition, in such a way that the purchaser of the property from the karta would get the share that is due to Hanumappa Kolli. 7. If that theory is applied, the entitlement of petitioner would be 1 acre 13 guntas which the final decree Court ought to have considered, for the reason that in the original suit what is required to be considered is the share which the 1st defendant Hanumappa Kolli was entitled to in the suit schedule property. The arrangement in which the third party purchaser would get the property could be decided in FDP proceedings. Therefore the FDP Court ought to have taken this point into consideration while dividing the suit properties among the children of Hanumappa Kolli, which the final decree Court has failed to exercise. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court feel that in the facts and circumstances it is just and necessary to answer that the petitioner is not only entitled to 1/7th share in Sy. No. 76/K which he has acquired under sale deed dated 10.8.1994, he is also entitled to the share of Hanumappa Kolli in other properties to compensate the extent which he has already purchased from Hanumappa Kolli. In that view of the matter, an extent of 1 acre 13 guntas which is 1/7th share of Hanumappa Kolli is required to be allotted in favour of the petitioner in land bearing Sy. No. 76/K for which the petitioner herein had secured an absolute sale deed from Hanumappa Kolli. With the above observation, this revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and consequently the final decree drawn is modified and the executing Court shall ensure that the petitioner would be entitled to receive 1 acre 13 guntas in Sy. No. 76/K of Danakanadoddi village, Koppal taluk and district.