JUDGMENT : 1. First defendant has filed this appeal questioning correctness and legality of judgment and decree passed in R.A. No. 08/2009 by the Senior Civil Judge, Basavana Bagewadi dated 18.02.2011 whereunder the appeal filed by first defendant came to be allowed and judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), Basavana Bagewadi in O.S. No. 104/2002 dated 03.11.2008 decreeing the suit by granting 1/4th share to plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 came to be modified by holding that plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are entitled for 1/5th share in the suit schedule property. 2. I have heard the arguments of Smt. Ratna N. Shivayogimath, learned counsel appearing for appellant and Sri Narendra M. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Sri Ashok S. Kinagi, for respondents 1 to 4. Perused the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 3. It is the contention of Smt. Ratna Shivayogimath that both the Courts erred in decreeing the suit inasmuch as said suit was based on false and concocted mutation entry which was without notice to appellant and said mutation entry has been set aside by the Assistant Commissioner, Basavana Bagewadi by order dated 30.07.2002 in Appeal No. 61/2001. She would also elaborate her submission by contending that the loan borrowed by father of first defendant has not at all been taken into consideration by the Courts below while examining the plea of plaintiffs for partition. On these grounds she contends that substantial questions of law as formulated in the appeal memorandum would arise for consideration for being formulated, adjudicated and answered and she prays for same being framed and answered in favour of first defendant. 4. Per contra, Sri Narendra M. Reddy would support the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below and would contend that liability of loan amount as pleaded by first defendant would be an issue which cannot be gone into while drawing up of preliminary decree and same can be examined by the trial Court while adjudicating final decree proceedings and as such, judgment of appellate Court does not call for interference. On these grounds he seeks for dismissal of the appeal since no substantial question of law is involved. 5. On these grounds he seeks for dismissal of the appeal since no substantial question of law is involved. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, it would disclose that both the Courts on appreciation/re-appreciation of evidence have arrived at a conclusion that suit property is a joint family property which had fallen to the share of third plaintiff who is father of plaintiffs 1 and 2 and first defendant and it has also been held that though plaintiffs had pleaded that there was prior partition by meets and bounds and as such it has refused to grant declaration and perpetual injunction in favour of plaintiffs in that respect and rightly so, since plaintiffs have failed to prove this fact. However, in the light of alternate prayer sought for by plaintiffs for grant of partition and separate possession, said plea has been examined by both Courts and it has been held that suit schedule property is a joint family property and has virtually accepted the plea of defendant No. 1 and decreed the suit for partition by declaring that plaintiffs and first defendant are entitled to 1/4th share in the suit property. 6. First defendant filed an appeal in R.A. No. 8/2009, which was partly allowed. Lower appellate Court has held that second defendant being the wife of third plaintiff was also entitled to a share as per Mitakshara law insofar as its application to Bombay Karnataka area and as such held that plaintiffs 1 to 3 and defendants 1 and 2 would be entitled to 1/5th share in suit schedule property. Said findings would not suffer from any legal infirmity calling for interference at the hands of this Court. 7. Insofar as second substantial question of law raised by the appellant can be brushed aside as not arising for consideration for the simple reason that trial Court had not decreed the suit on the basis of Mutation Entry No. 2629 as sought to be contended by first defendant but on the ground that plaintiffs had established that suit schedule property is a joint family property. In that view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to formulate the substantial question of law as pleaded. In that view of the matter, I do not find any good ground to formulate the substantial question of law as pleaded. It is to be further noticed that the alleged liability if any is to be shared by all the co-sharers as pleaded by first defendant, it would be an issue which requires to be worked out in the Final Decree Proceedings and as such the said aspect cannot be gone into while drawing up of a preliminary decree. In this regard contentions of both parties are kept open and no opinion is expressed. 8. Hence, the following: ORDER (i) Regular Second appeal is hereby dismissed. (ii) Judgment and decree dated 18.02.2011 passed in R.A. No. 8/2009 by the Senior Civil Judge, Basavana Bagewadi is hereby affirmed. (iii) No costs. In view of second appeal having been disposed of, I.A. No. 2/2015 does not survive for consideration and it is accordingly rejected.