JUDGMENT 1. The present appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC challenging the concurrent findings of the trial Court bearing O.S. 324 of 2004 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn.) Jamkhandi, sitting at Mudhol and confirmation of the same by the District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamkhandi in R.A. 145 of 2008. 2. The said suit had been filed for relief of partition and separate possession in respect of land measuring 14.27 acres in Survey No.126. The appellants herein were plaintiffs and respondents were defendants in the suit. 3. According to the plaintiffs, one Huliya was the propositus and he had two sons namely Krishnappa and Singadeppa. Krishnappa had one son namely Rudrappa, who is defendant No.1 and Singadeppa had five sons, who are plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 to 4. The land in Sy.No.126 of Lokapur Village originally measuring 14.27 acres was an ancestral property of the family of the plaintiffs and defendants. After the death of propositus Huliya, the mutation was effected in the name of his son Krishnappa. After the death of Krishnappa, mutation was done in the name of defendant No.1-Rudrappa and Rudrappa was minor when his father died. Hence, his Uncle Singadeppa was the guardian of defendant No.1 and also sharer in the suit property. 4. According to the plaintiffs, the entire extent of 14.27 acres of land in Sy.No.126 has been in joint possession of the plaintiffs and defendants more particularly being the joint family. Therefore, they have sought for half share in the suit schedule property. According to the plaintiffs, no partition has ever taken place between the plaintiffs and defendants or their predecessors at any point of time and name of defendant No.1 is found in the land records as he is the elder member of the family. Defendant No.1 is stated to have sold 4 acres of non-agricultural land in Sy.No.126 and refused to pay consideration amount to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 2 to 4. With these pleadings, they had approached the Court for relief of possession and partition. 5. Defendant No.1 filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments. According to him, plaintiffs had no right or title over the suit property and have denied that the plaintiffs have half share in the suit property. 2 to 4. With these pleadings, they had approached the Court for relief of possession and partition. 5. Defendant No.1 filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments. According to him, plaintiffs had no right or title over the suit property and have denied that the plaintiffs have half share in the suit property. According to the defendants, partition took place long back and therefore, the suit itself is not maintainable for partition. According to defendant No.1, several persons are owning number of properties. Families of plaintiffs and defendants have been living separately for more than 30 years. Plaintiff No.1 has purchased an open space bearing No.2473 from defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 has also purchased one open space bearing No.2324 from defendant No.1. Hence, defendants requested for dismissal of the suit. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings following issues had been framed: (a) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they suit properties are the ancestral and joint family properties? (b) Whether the plaintiffs further prove that there was no partition in between the plaintiffs and defendants in respect of the suit properties? (c) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that suit of the plaintiffs is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as pleaded in para No.16 of the W.S.? (d) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they themselves and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled for half share in the suit properties? (e) What order or decree? 7. On behalf of the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 is examined as PW-1 and in all 9 exhibits have been marked. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 has been examined as DW-1 and two other witnesses have been examined and as many as 18 exhibits have been marked. 8. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Judge of the trial Court has answered issues 1 to 4 in the negative and consequently, dismissed the suit. Against the said judgment and decree dated 3.4.2008 passed in O.S. 324 of 2008, regular appeal was filed under Section 96 of CPC in R.A. 145 of 2008. Several grounds had been urged in the appeal memo filed under Section 96 of CPC. On hearing the arguments, the regular appeal is also dismissed by a considered judgment dated 23.7.2009. These concurrent findings are called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo. Several grounds had been urged in the appeal memo filed under Section 96 of CPC. On hearing the arguments, the regular appeal is also dismissed by a considered judgment dated 23.7.2009. These concurrent findings are called in question on various grounds as set out in the appeal memo. Several questions have been raised in this appeal to be considered as substantial questions of law within the purview of Section 100 of CPC. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted the arguments in regard to the admission. 10. It is true that the land in Sy.No.126 measuring 14.27 acres was divided, but the plaint is silent as to when it was subdivided as Sy.No.126/1 and Sy.No.126/2. Admittedly, the documents produced by the defendants would go to show that 4 acres of land has already been converted into nonagricultural purpose and several residential plots have been carved out in the said land. Plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2 themselves have purchased two residential plots from defendant No.1. Several evidence has been placed on record to show that land in Sy.No.126 is no more a joint family property. Ex.D-17 and 18 are the sale deeds executed by the defendant No.1 in respect of plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.2 and others. The learned Judge of the trial Court has made a specific observation, which is as follows: “If the said plaintiffs and defendant No.2 are having the share and if the suit property is joint family property between the plaintiffs and defendants, then how plaintiffs and defendant No.2 purchased the plots from the defendant No.1 in the suit land i.e., 04 acres N.A. from defendant No.1 under the registered sale deed. In this regard, no proper explanation is coming from the plaintiff’s side. The said plaintiffs and defendant No.2 purchased the plots under the Ex.D17 and Ex.D18 from the defendant No.1 in the suit land itself shows that, there was a partition in between the father of the plaintiffs and father of the defendant No.1 in the family property.” 11. What is argued before this Court by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there is nothing on record to show that 4 acres had fallen to the share of defendant No.1 as his share. It is further argued that defendant No.1 has not taken a specific plea of earlier partition in the written statement. What is argued before this Court by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that there is nothing on record to show that 4 acres had fallen to the share of defendant No.1 as his share. It is further argued that defendant No.1 has not taken a specific plea of earlier partition in the written statement. It is true that there is no specific plea in regard to earlier partition in the written statement. But there is a specific plea in regard to severance of joint status of the family and two families living separately and enjoying their shares separately. Inference drawn by the trial Court and First Appellate Court is based on unequivocal admissions culled out from the mouth of PW-1 and this admission is within the purview of Section 17 of Evidence Act. 12. There is no explanation as to why 4 acres of land was got converted for non-agricultural purpose and how several residential plots were formed. There is no explanation as to how defendant No.1 could sell these plots to various persons and how plaintiffs and defendant No.2 could themselves purchase separate residential plots. Even otherwise, PW-1 has admitted that suit property has been mutated in the name of defendant No.1 30 years ago and his father died 17-18 years ago. If really plaintiff had share in the property, they would not have kept mum for a period of 30 years. At no point of time, either the plaintiff or their father objected for effecting mutation in the name of defendant No.1 in respect of suit property. The admissions culled out from the mouth of PW-1 are enough to dismiss the suit and therefore, the trial Court and First Appellate Court have rightly dismissed the suit and appeal. 13. The trial Court and the First Appellate Court have assessed the evidence on the basis of broad preponderance of probabilities and have come to a proper conclusion. There is no perversity or illegality in the approach adopted by the trial Court or the First Appellate Court. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent factual findings in regard to the severance status of the joint family and division of the properties and same being acted upon. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself. There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent factual findings in regard to the severance status of the joint family and division of the properties and same being acted upon. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself. ORDER The appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC challenging the concurrent findings of the trial Court bearing O.S. 324 of 2004 pending on the file of Addl. Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn.) Jamkhandi, sitting at Mudhol and affirmed by the District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamkhandi in R.A. 145 of 2008 is dismissed as unfit for admission. There is no order as to costs.