JUDGMENT : K. Somashekar, J. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.2 is the wife of defendant No.2. Their marriage took place on 21.03.2011 in Kalmeshwar Devasthan, Unkal. The plaintiff No.1 is their son. One Hanamantagouda is the propositus of the plaintiffs and defendants. He died in the year 1994. The defendant No.1 is the wife of deceased Hanamantagouda. The defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the sons and defendant Nos.4 to 7 are the daughters of the deceased Hanamantagouda. In this regard, genealogy is given by the plaintiffs. The plaintiff No.2 has alleged that at the time of her marriage with the defendant No.2, her father had given Rs.21,000/- cash, 8 tolas gold and silver worth Rs.21,000/- and also Rs.5,000/- and 2 tolas gold at the time of Srimanth function. After the marriage, defendant No.2 has lead married life happily with the plaintiff No.2 only for few months. Thereafter, all the defendants started to harass the plaintiff No.2 physically and mentally. Thereafter, she was sent to her parental house for delivery of the plaintiff No.1. It is alleged that after delivery, the family of the defendants did not take back the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, they have not provided any maintenance to them. The defendant No.2 had totally neglected the plaintiffs, still then he had issued false legal notice in the year 2004 to the plaintiff No.2 for which she has given reply. 2. It is further stated that the suit schedule 'A' properties are fallen to the share of the deceased Hanamantagouda in a partition between himself and his brother. The plot mentioned in 'B' schedule was purchased out of the income of the joint family in the name of defendant No.2 and another land is purchased in the name of defendant No.3. The amount of Rs.44,20,000/- shown in schedule 'C' is derived by the family since family properties. 3. It is further stated that plaintiff No.2 was harassed by the defendants by demanding more dowry. In spite of the repeated request by the plaintiff No.2 to the defendant No.2, they did not stop demanding dowry. The plaintiffs have alleged that suit properties are joint family properties of both the parties. Defendant No.2 was entitled for 1/3rd share in all the suit properties, out of this plaintiffs were entitled 2/6th share jointly. In spite of the repeated request by the plaintiff No.2 to the defendant No.2, they did not stop demanding dowry. The plaintiffs have alleged that suit properties are joint family properties of both the parties. Defendant No.2 was entitled for 1/3rd share in all the suit properties, out of this plaintiffs were entitled 2/6th share jointly. The defendant Nos.4 to 7 are not entitled any share as they have taken gold, cash etc., at the time of their marriage. So they are formal parties in the suit. The plaintiff No.1 was studying, so plaintiff No.2 was not in a position to meet his expenses, as she is under mercy of her parents. Due to the ill-treatment it was difficult for the plaintiffs to enjoy the suit properties jointly. Hence, the suit has filed by the plaintiffs. 4. After service of summons, the defendant Nos.1 to 7 had appeared. The 2nd defendant filed written statement in detail. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 to 7 adopted the same written statement of 2nd defendant. In the written statement, the defendant No.2 denied the averments of the plaintiffs. He admitted that he had issued legal notice to the plaintiff No.2 for restitution of conjugal rights. The allegation of ill-treatment by defendants is denied and sought for dismissal of the suit, as stated in detail in their written statement. 5. Upon rival pleadings of both the plaintiffs and the defendants, issues and additional issues were framed by the Trial Court which are as under : Issues VERNACULAR MATTER 6. In order to establish the case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as P.W.1 and one witness was examined as P.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P-1 to P-13. On the other hand, the defendant No.2 examined as D.W.1 and two witnesses were examined as D.Ws.2 and 3 and no documents got marked on their behalf. 7. Heard the arguments advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendants. 8. The learned Senior Civil Judge has held the issue Nos.1 and 4 in the affirmative, issue No.2 and additional issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative, issue No.3 was deleted and additional issue No.3 was answered accordingly for the reasons assigned. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below has been questioned by preferring this appeal by the plaintiffs/appellants. 9. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Court below has been questioned by preferring this appeal by the plaintiffs/appellants. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants during the course of his arguments has been contended that the plaintiffs have alleged that the defendants started to ill-treat plaintiff No.2 by demanding excess dowry. When the plaintiff No.2 went to her parents house for delivery of plaintiff No.1 and thereafter the defendants did not take back her to their house. She has alleged that defendants ill-treated her and they have not provided any maintenance to herself and plaintiff No.1. The plaintiff No.2 has alleged that suit properties are ancestral joint family properties. In written statement, the defendants have not denied this fact. 10. P.W.1 is the plaintiff No.2, she has deposed in her evidence that she is the wife of defendant No.2 and plaintiff No.1 is their son, remaining defendants are the mother, brother and sisters of the defendant No.2. The relationship is admitted by the defendants. P.W.1 has stated that the suit properties have fallen to the share of her father-in-law in partition. The suit of open space and land situated at Shivalli, they are purchased out of the income of the joint family. It is further submitted that there is a tractor and trailer so also the family was awarded a compensation of Rs.44,20,000/- for acquiring their land for airport purpose. This aspect of the matter had been analysed by the learned Senior Civil Judge as per the evidence adduced by the plaintiffs and the defendants to establish their case. 11. Plaintiff No.2 produced Exs.P-1 to P-7 record of rights of the suit properties which go to show that the suit properties are standing in the name of defendant Nos.1 to 3. Ex.P-8 is the tax paid receipt and Ex.P-9 is the CTS extract. Ex.P-10 is the record of rights of block No.284/1. Looking to the cross-examination of P.W.1 in page No.6, it is suggested that all the suit properties are the joint family properties. However, looking to the suggestion itself it is proved that suit properties are the joint family properties. D.W.1 is the defendant No.1. In his chief-examination he never denied that the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties and it is not denied that they are fallen to share of his father in partition. However, looking to the suggestion itself it is proved that suit properties are the joint family properties. D.W.1 is the defendant No.1. In his chief-examination he never denied that the suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties and it is not denied that they are fallen to share of his father in partition. D.W.1 in his cross-examination admits that the suit properties are given to the share of his father in partition between his father and the brothers of his father. It is further stated that D.W.1 admitted that the land in Ex.P-11 is purchased in the name of the defendant No.3 out of the income of the joint family. He admitted that the plot in Ex.P-9 is also purchased in his name out of the income of the joint family. Therefore, the evidence of D.W.1 clearly goes to show that the suit properties are ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants and the learned Senior Civil Judge answered the issue No.1 in the affirmative. 12. The defendants contended that the Court below was not having jurisdiction to try the suit in respect of the suit schedule properties. However, looking to para 11 of the written statement, the vague contention is taken to the effect that since there is no cause of action within jurisdiction of the Court, so this Court is not having jurisdiction. The defendants have failed to prove this issue and the learned Senior Civil Judge answered the issue No.2 in the negative for assigning reasons keeping in view the contention as taken in this issue. 13. Whereas additional issue Nos.1 and 2 are concerned, looking to the evidence of plaintiff No.2, the learned Senior Civil Judge held that looking to the contentions of the defendants that there is no cause of action for the plaintiffs to file the suit. It is further contended that there is no basis for the claim or denial of the share by the defendant No.2 and his family members. It also contended that the cause of action is created since there is no exact date of cause of action mentioned in the suit. But all these contentions are baseless, cause of action for a suit will not be based only on single event, the cause of action is be bundle of fact. Looking to the plaint allegations, the plaintiff No.2 has alleged that the defendants were ill-treating her. But all these contentions are baseless, cause of action for a suit will not be based only on single event, the cause of action is be bundle of fact. Looking to the plaint allegations, the plaintiff No.2 has alleged that the defendants were ill-treating her. Even after delivery of the plaintiff No.1, none of the defendants visited to the parents house of the plaintiff No.2 and asked her to come back to lead married life with defendant No.2. She has seriously alleged that looking to the ill-treatment by the defendants, it is not possible for them to enjoy the suit property jointly. So this fact is considered as the cause of action for the plaintiff only, in her evidence also she stated this fact of ill-treatment. Looking to the chief-examination of P.W.1 fully corroborates with the plaint allegations. Hence, looking to her evidence, it was proved that there was a cause of action to the plaintiffs to file the suit. Accordingly, the learned Senior Civil Judge answered the additional issue No.1 in the negative. 14. Whereas, additional issue No.2 is concerned, the defendants contended that plaintiff No.2 is the wife of defendant No.2. So during the lifetime of her husband, the plaintiff No.2 cannot move for partition and she cannot claim share separately. However, on this ground it was contended that the suit is not maintainable. But looking to the written statement, it is an admitted fact that the plaintiff No.1 is son of the defendant No.2. Looking to the evidence of P.W.1, it clearly states that she went to her parents house for delivery of her son i.e., plaintiff No.1. After delivery none of the defendants visited and enquired her. She states that she is residing in her parents house and she is depending on her parents. She states that since the plaintiff No.2 did not returned to his house, he issued legal notice to her claiming the restitution of conjugal rights. This fact clearly goes to show that the defendants particularly defendant No.2 is not in good terms with the plaintiffs. In the cross-examination, D.W.1 admits that he has not visited the house of parents of the plaintiff No.2. He admits that he do not know in which school his son was studying and he admits that he neither provided any maintenance nor he has taken care of his son i.e., plaintiff No.1. In the cross-examination, D.W.1 admits that he has not visited the house of parents of the plaintiff No.2. He admits that he do not know in which school his son was studying and he admits that he neither provided any maintenance nor he has taken care of his son i.e., plaintiff No.1. In the present case, it should be noted that the plaintiff No.1 is the son of the defendant No.2 and the defendant No.2 is not maintaining the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 as admitted by him. The plaintiff No.1 is the son, he is having right to claim share through his next friend i.e., mother. When the defendant No.2 and other defendants are not ready to allow the plaintiffs to lead peaceful life with them and they have not provided anything toward their maintenance so plaintiff No.1 being son is entitled to get his separate share in the suit properties. Because it is an admitted fact that the suit properties are joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants. As this additional issue is concerned, the learned Senior Civil Judge answered the same in the negative for the aforesaid reasons. 15. Whereas, issue No.3 is concerned, looking to the contentions of the plaintiffs that plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for interim maintenance. But looking to the prayer of the plaintiffs there is no any relief claimed by the plaintiffs for relief of maintenance. When the plaintiffs have sought for the partition and separate possession, there arises no question of any maintenance to them and also there is no application filed by the plaintiffs for awarding the interim maintenance. The contention of the defendants is that defendant No.2 has filed G&W case claiming the custody of the plaintiff No.1. Accordingly, they were not entitled for interim maintenance. The trial of G&W case is entirely different and it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court. So regarding this issue, it is not necessary to give detail findings. Because this fact will be decided only in G&W case. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the learned Senior Civil Judge answered issue No.3 accordingly. 16. Whereas, issue No.4 is concerned, the plaintiff in the suit have sought for partition 2/6th share jointly out of the share of the defendant No.2. Because this fact will be decided only in G&W case. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the learned Senior Civil Judge answered issue No.3 accordingly. 16. Whereas, issue No.4 is concerned, the plaintiff in the suit have sought for partition 2/6th share jointly out of the share of the defendant No.2. According to plaintiffs, defendant Nos.1 to 3 alone are entitled for 1/3rd share in the suit properties out of which the defendant No.2 is also 1/4th share. Hence, in his 1/3rd share they are entitled for 2/6th share. Hence, in his 1/3rd share, they are entitled for 2/6th share. However, looking to the plaint it is contended that defendant Nos.4 to 7 are not entitled for any share since they already given share in gold and cash. However, this aspect of the matter has been considered by the learned Senior Civil Judge, keeping in view of the evidence put-forth by the plaintiffs as well as defendants to establish their case in respect of the suit schedule properties depicted therein. 17. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 4 to 7 are also equal 1/7th share so the plaintiffs are not entitled for 2/6th share out of 1/3rd share of defendant No.2, because defendant No.2 is entitled for 1/7th share not the 1/3rd share. Out of the 1/7th share of defendant No.2, the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 are entitled for 1/3rd share each which may come to 1/21st share each. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/21st share each, for the reasons assigned insofar as issue No.4 are concerned. 18. The plaintiffs have alleged that the land belonging to the joint family is acquired by the Government for Airport. It is alleged that an amount of Rs.44,20,000/- shown in schedule 'C' is awarded to the joint family. In the written statement, the acquisition of the land and also awarding compensation is not denied. P.W.1 has produced the letter issued by the SLAO having acquired the land and awarded the compensation. Ex.P-13 was the letter issued by SLAO. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that the compensation amount is not yet divided between the deceased Hanamantagouda and the defendants, among he denies it. Ex.P-13 SLAO clearly mentioned that an amount Rs.44,20,000/- is received by the defendant No.1 through cheque dated 04.03.2010, of Corporation Bank, Dharwad, so in this amount also the plaintiffs are having the share according to law. Ex.P-13 SLAO clearly mentioned that an amount Rs.44,20,000/- is received by the defendant No.1 through cheque dated 04.03.2010, of Corporation Bank, Dharwad, so in this amount also the plaintiffs are having the share according to law. Accordingly, issue No.4 was answered in the affirmative. 19. However, keeping in view of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents in this appeal, so far as the evidence adduced by P.Ws.1 and 2 and also got marked Exs.P-1 to P-13, similarly the evidence of D.Ws.1 to 3, but no documents were got marked to establish their case. Whereas the learned Senior Civil Judge who had gone through the entire evidence of the plaintiffs and defendants and also the documents which were put-forth to establish their case in respect of the suit schedule properties had come to the conclusion of allotment of share in respect of the suit schedule properties depicted therein and the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. 20. However, learned counsel for the appellants filed a memo in regard to allotment of share in detail in addition to that an application is annexed in the appeal memo as well as the plaint that the share, it is amended as per the submission made by the counsel for the appellants as well as the respondents in respect of the suit schedule properties. In that regard, they filed a detail memo for allotment of shares. 21. Therefore, for the aforesaid reasons and findings, we are of the opinion that the decree dated 27.04.2013, in Original Suit No.129 of 2010 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hubli is hereby modified. Accordingly, the memo of calculation of shares reads as under : 'Hanumantagouda (Propositus) = 1/4th share Channavva (wife of propositus) = 1/4th share Dyamanagouda (1st son) = 1/4th share Shekargouda (2nd son) = 1/4th share Hanumantagouda's 1/4th share if distributed among all his legal heirs i.e., wife, two sons and four daughters i.e., 1/7th of 1/4th which will come to 1/28th to each sharer. Share of Dyamangouda i.e., husband of 2nd plaintiff and father of 1st plaintiff thus would be 1/4th + 1/28th = 8/28th. Out of 8/28th share of Dyamangouda plaintiffs/appellants are entitled for 1/3rd share each which would come to 8/84." 22. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following : ORDER 24. Share of Dyamangouda i.e., husband of 2nd plaintiff and father of 1st plaintiff thus would be 1/4th + 1/28th = 8/28th. Out of 8/28th share of Dyamangouda plaintiffs/appellants are entitled for 1/3rd share each which would come to 8/84." 22. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following : ORDER 24. The appeal filed by the appellants under Section 96 read with Order 41, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree dated 27.04.2013, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubli in O.S. No.129 of 2010 is modified in the aforesaid terms. 25. No costs.