JUDGMENT : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. Learned Counsel did not report settlement. Defendant 2 in O.S. No. 61 of 2007 on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Challakere, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 9-10-2009 declaring that plaintiffs were entitled to half share in the suit schedule property, preferred R.A. No. 90 of 2009 along with the first defendant, whence the Additional Sessions Judge, Chitradurga, by judgment and decree dated 10-2-2010 allowed the appeal in part and declared the appellants entitled to 1/9th share in the suit schedule property, hence this second appeal. 2. Regard being had to the undisputed facts that one Chittaiah was the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having died intestate, left behind two sons and one daughter viz., Chittaiah, Mookaiah and Basamma, from out of whom, Chittaiah too died leaving behind his widow and children, none other than the plaintiffs, while Mookaiah and Basamma, defendants 1 and 2 respectively claiming declaration, partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties left behind by Chittaiah, the following substantial question of law arise for decision making: Whether, in the facts, circumstances and evidence on record, the Trial Court was justified in declaring plaintiffs to be entitled to half share in the suit schedule property while the Lower Appellate Court in declaring defendant 2 was entitled to 1/9th share? 3. With the consent of learned Counsel for parties, the appeal is finally heard and disposed of by this order. 4. Facts not being in dispute, Chittaiah said to be the absolute owner of the suit schedule property, died intestate leaving behind three children, therefore, applying Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the three children being Class I heirs, are entitled to equal share in the suit schedule property. In other words, Chittaiah, S/o. Chittaiah, Mookaiah, S/o. Chittaiah and Basamma, D/o. Chittaiah, are each entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. 5. In the circumstances, the Courts below, in the first place, the Trial Court was not justified in declaring plaintiffs, the legal representatives of deceased Chittaiah, S/o. Chittaiah are entitled to half share while the lower Appellate Court was not justified in declaring Basamma, appellant/defendant 2 as entitled to 1/9th share. The findings recorded by the Courts below cannot but be characterised as perverse and illegal. In the circumstances, the substantial question of law is answered in the negative. The findings recorded by the Courts below cannot but be characterised as perverse and illegal. In the circumstances, the substantial question of law is answered in the negative. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the Courts below are set aside. The suit is allowed declaring that the plaintiffs representing branch of Chittaiah and defendants 1 and 2, are each entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit schedule property. Registry to draw up the preliminary decree, accordingly.