JUDGMENT : 1. The unsuccessful LRs. of the deceased first defendant are before this Court against the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2016 made in R.A.No.13/2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sedam dismissing the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2014 made in O.S.No.99/2009 on the file of the Civil Judge, Sedam decreeing the suit of the plaintiff declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in Sy.No.42/1 measuring 4 acres 3 guntas situated at Beeranalli village directing the defendants to carve out half share of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property within two months from the date of the order. Brief facts of the case: 2. The first respondent – Siddamma who was the plaintiff before the Trial Court filed a suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the suit schedule property morefully described in the schedule to the plaint against the original defendants contending that the suit schedule property measuring 4 acres 3 guntas in Sy.No.42/1 situated at Beeranalli village, Sedam taluk, Kalaburagi district belongs to the plaintiff and the first defendant who are the members of the Hindu undivided joint family and it is an ancestral joint family property. The father of the plaintiff and the first defendant are real brothers. The grandfather of the plaintiff by name Peerappa was the owner of the suit land. The plaintiff and the first defendant are having equal right over the suit property. The father of the plaintiff died when the plaintiff was child and her mother Mahadevi got married some other person of Hebbal village. The first defendant being the Karta of the family and his name was mutated in the suit property and they are enjoying the suit property as joint owners. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 joined the hands not to give the share of the plaintiff. The first defendant taking undue advantage of his name appearing in the suit property trying to alienate the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff demanded her share and the first defendant postponed by one or other reason and finally refused to give her share. Therefore, she filed suit as prayed for. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant died and his LRs. were brought on record. Therefore, the plaintiff demanded her share and the first defendant postponed by one or other reason and finally refused to give her share. Therefore, she filed suit as prayed for. 3. During the pendency of the suit, the original defendant died and his LRs. were brought on record. The first defendant in his written statement admitted the description of the suit property and boundaries and contended that the Peerappa S/o Saboo was the owner of the suit land and he was the father of the first defendant and denied that said Peerappa was the grandfather of the plaintiff. It is contended that there was no relationship between the plaintiff and first defendant and the plaintiff has no way concerned to the family of the first defendant. The family pedigree shown in the plaint was incorrect and baseless and the first defendant was only the legal heir of the deceased Peerappa and denied that the first defendant living together at any time. The plaintiff is unknown lady and question of joint family does not arise. The first defendant was the legal heir of the deceased Peerappa and he got entered his name in the entire suit land about 35 years back. The father of the first defendant died long back and after his death, the name of the first defendant was mutated. The first defendant was residing in Beeranalli village and the plaintiff was residing at Rudranoor in Chincholli taluk and her mother was residing at Hebbal village in Chittapur taluk. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit with compensatory costs. 4. The second defendant also filed the written statement contending that he made enquiry in the village and entered into agreement with the first defendant. The first defendant with the consent of his family members entered into agreement of sale deed dated 25.06.2008 agreeing to sell the suit property for Rs.5,50,000/- per acre and he paid advance consideration amount of Rs.13,95,000/-. There was public hearing to establishment of industries in acquiring lands and the same was published in the newspaper for acquisition of lands. The transactions took place between the defendants is within the knowledge of the plaintiff and she never informed the same to the second defendant. He was the bonafide purchaser and applied for permission to purchase the land covered under the agreement of sale. The transactions took place between the defendants is within the knowledge of the plaintiff and she never informed the same to the second defendant. He was the bonafide purchaser and applied for permission to purchase the land covered under the agreement of sale. Further it is contended that there was cause of action to the plaintiff to file a suit and the agreement transactions was for legal necessity and for public purpose. It was also contended that if the Court holds that the plaintiff got share in the family property, he being the bonafide purchaser entitled to have the property purchased by him under the agreement of sale alleged to the share of his vendor under equitable partition. The Court fee paid was insufficient and the Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. Therefore, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Based on the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are coparceners of the Hindu undivided family? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit property is ancestral and joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that she has got ½ share in the suit schedule property? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitle the relief sought for? 5. What order or decree? 6. In order to substantiate her case, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and other three witnesses were examined PWs.2 to 4 and got marked documents Exs.P.1 to P.4. The first defendant examined as DW.1 and another witness examined as DW.2 and produced documents Exs.D1 to D15. The second defendant has not adduced any evidence nor produced any documents. 7. The Trial Court considering both oral and documentary evidence on record recorded a finding that the plaintiff proved that she and the first defendant are coparceners of the Hindu undivided family and the suit property was the ancestral and joint family property of the plaintiff and the first defendant. It was also held that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit property and she is entitled to the relief sought for. Accordingly, by the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2014 decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in Sy.No.42/1 measuring 4 acres 3 guntas situated at Beeranalli village (suit schedule property). 8. It was also held that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit property and she is entitled to the relief sought for. Accordingly, by the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2014 decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in Sy.No.42/1 measuring 4 acres 3 guntas situated at Beeranalli village (suit schedule property). 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the LRs. of the first defendant filed an appeal in R.A.No.13/2014 before the Senior Civil Judge, Sedam who after hearing both the parties, by the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.10.2016 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. 9. Being aggrieved by the concurrent findings on fact recorded by the Courts below, did not deter the appellants from preferring this regular second appeal as a last ditch attempt. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for appellants. 11. Sri Sharanabasappa K. Babshetty, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the impugned judgment and decree passed by of the Courts below declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit property is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. He further contended that both the Courts failed to notice that the first defendant in the written statement denied the relationship between the plaintiff and the first defendant. The question of granting share to a stranger to the family would not arise. He further contended that the first defendant categorically denied that the pedigree produced as false and the plaintiff was the daughter of one Mahadevi, who was not related to the appellants/first defendant. He also contended that both the Courts below ignored the oral and documentary evidence on record and proceeded to pass the judgment and award. Therefore, sought to set aside the judgment and decree of the Courts below by allowing the present regular second appeal. 12. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the entire material on record carefully 13. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit property was the joint family property of the plaintiff and the first defendant. Originally, the suit property belongs to one Peerappa and he had two sons by name Hussainappa i.e., the father of the plaintiff and Bassanna i.e., first defendant. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the suit property was the joint family property of the plaintiff and the first defendant. Originally, the suit property belongs to one Peerappa and he had two sons by name Hussainappa i.e., the father of the plaintiff and Bassanna i.e., first defendant. They were enjoying the suit property jointly and there was no partition. It is the specific case of the first defendant that the plaintiff was stranger to the family and she was not concerned to the first defendant or the property. He was only the legal heir of Peerappa and after his death, revenue records entered into his name in respect of the suit property and he was in possession. The second defendant filed the written statement contending that he has entered into an agreement with the first defendant on 25.06.2008 but he has not stepped into witness box nor produced any document. The said averments made in the written statement by the second defendant is not at all averred by the first defendant in his written statement. 14. In order to substantiate her case, the plaintiff produced Exs.P1 to P3 and they depicts the name of the original propositor Peerappa and after his death, the name of the first defendant Bassanna has been entered. Ex.P4 is the family pedigree produced to show that said Peerappa had two sons namely Hussainappa, the father of the plaintiff and Bassanna, the first defendant. PWs.2, 3 and 4 stated on oath that the plaintiff and first defendant are the members of the joint family and Peerappa was the original propositor. The plaintiff was the daughter of Hussainappa and she is entitled to half share in the suit property. 15. In order to disprove the case of the plaintiff, DW.1 Bandamma W/o late Basanna and DW.2 were examined and produced documents Exs.D1 and D2 Khasra Pahani and Exs.D3 to D15 to show that they are the legal heirs of Basannaa. DW.1 though stated that the plaintiff was not related to his family and she was the daughter of Mahadevi W/o Anneppa, no documents were produced before the Court nor genealogy tree of the first defendant’s family. DW.1 though stated that the plaintiff was not related to his family and she was the daughter of Mahadevi W/o Anneppa, no documents were produced before the Court nor genealogy tree of the first defendant’s family. DW.2 who examined on behalf of the defendants stated in the crossexamination that he does not know that Peerappa had two sons by name Basanna and Hussainappa and also stated that he does not know that the plaintiff was 4 to 5 months baby when her father died. 16. The Trial Court considering the oral and documentary evidence on record has proceeded to record a finding that the plaintiff and defendant N.1 are living together as joint family members and cultivating the suit land. The first defendant being the Karta, his name has been entered in the revenue records. The plaintiff having share in the suit property. The father of the plaintiff and the first defendant are real brothers and the grandfather of the plaintiff by name Peerappa was the owner of the suit property. Though, the first defendant denied the relationship with the plaintiff but he has not made any efforts to show that who was the father of the plaintiff. When he has taken specific contention that the plaintiff was not the daughter of the deceased Hussainappa he has to show that who was the father of the plaintiff. It was burden on the first defendant to show that the plaintiff was not related to him or his family. The Trial Court further recorded finding that the version of PW.1 is sufficient to hold that the deceased Peerannaa had two sons by name Hussainappa and Bassanna. The father of the plaintiff by name Hussainappa died when the plaintiff was 4 to 5 months baby. It was not possible for the plaintiff to show that her father is cultivating the suit property and his name was appearing in the revenue records. The plaintiff is residing in her husband’s house. After her marriage, now it is not possible for the plaintiff to show that she was residing in Beeranalli and cultivating the suit land jointly. It is presumption under Hindu law that if one of the member of joint family is cultivating the land it is deemed that it is on behalf of other members of the family. After her marriage, now it is not possible for the plaintiff to show that she was residing in Beeranalli and cultivating the suit land jointly. It is presumption under Hindu law that if one of the member of joint family is cultivating the land it is deemed that it is on behalf of other members of the family. Mere cultivation by the first defendant alone does not create absolute right to the first defendant over the suit property. The plaintiff being the coparcener she had got birth right in the suit property. The oral evidence of PW.1 is sufficient to hold that the plaintiff is the daughter of the deceased Hussainappa and the said Hussainappa was the son of deceased Peerappa. After the death of her father, the plaintiff became the coparcener of Hindu undivided family. The mother of the plaintiff left the plaintiff in her husband’s house and got married some other person. Thereafter, the plaintiff lived with the first defendant and denied that she was not the member of their family and not concern to the suit property. Even he has gone to the extent saying that he was sole surviving son of Peerappa, it is classic example of denial of right of woman who was having birth right in the suit property. Since, the plaintiff is claiming her father’s share in the suit property, the first defendant has denied the relationship with the plaintiff who had taken care of the plaintiff from her childhood and performed marriage. 17. PW.2 to 4 in categorical terms stated that the plaintiff is the daughter of Husenappa and Basanna is brother of Husenappa. The plaintiff and defendants are the members of joint family and there was no partition. The trial Court further recorded a finding that Ex.P.4 genealogy tree which shows that propositor Peerappa had wife by name Peeramma and they had two sons by name Husenappa and Basanna. The plaintiff is the daughter of deceased Husenappa. Though the defendant No.1 denied the genealogy tree, but he was not produced any rebuttal documents to disbelieve the Ex.P.4. The oral evidence of PW.1 to 4 is corroborates with Ex.P.4 and from this it can be said that, plaintiff is the daughter of deceased Hussainappa and granddaughter of deceased Peerappa. The defendant No.1 being the son of Peerappa and plaintiff is the daughter of deceased-Hussainappa they constitute members of Hindu Undivided Joint Family. The oral evidence of PW.1 to 4 is corroborates with Ex.P.4 and from this it can be said that, plaintiff is the daughter of deceased Hussainappa and granddaughter of deceased Peerappa. The defendant No.1 being the son of Peerappa and plaintiff is the daughter of deceased-Hussainappa they constitute members of Hindu Undivided Joint Family. The plaintiff is the coparcener and having birth right in suit schedule property. 18. The trial Court further recorded a finding that Ex.P.1 is the RTC extract of suit property bearing Sy.No.42/1 measuring 04 acres 03 guntas standing in the name of defendant No.1. The Ex.P.2 is the RTC extract of property bearing Sy.No.42/1 measuring 04 acres 03 guntas for the year 1968-69 to 1972-73. In column No.9 name of Peerappa s/o Saboo has been entered as owner and possessor. It is also not in dispute that originally suit schedule property is belongs to Peerappa s/o Saboo Harijan and his name is entered in the RTC column as Pattedar. The entries in the revenue records standing in the name of deceased Peerappa is sufficient to hold that, the suit schedule property is ancestral property of plaintiff. The deceased Peerappa had two sons by name Hussainappa and Basanna. The plaintiff being the sole surviving legal heir of deceased Hussainappa. She has become the coparcener and having share over the suit schedule property. There is no dispute that the suit schedule property originally belongs to Peerappa. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled for share. Accordingly, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff as prayed for. 19. The Lower Appellate Court after framing the points for determination as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 31 of Code of Civil Procedure has recorded a finding that, the trial Court has not committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff without considering the documentary evidence on record. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is not illegal, capricious and against the facts of the case thereby warranting interference. The Lower Appellate Court recorded a finding that, the plaintiff has produced genealogical tree, which is marked as Ex.P.4 to show that she is the daughter of Husainappa. Though the defendants have made suggestion that the plaintiff has got false genealogical tree, but PW.1 denied the same. The defendants have not produced the genealogical tree to show the family of defendant No.1. Though the defendants have made suggestion that the plaintiff has got false genealogical tree, but PW.1 denied the same. The defendants have not produced the genealogical tree to show the family of defendant No.1. The defendant No.1 in the written statement has taken specific plea that the plaintiff is the daughter of Mahadevi w/o Anneppa and in the written statement filed by the defendants also have taken specific pleas that the plaintiff is the daughter of one Mahadevi w/o Anneppa. Therefore, it is burden on the defendants to prove that the plaintiff is daughter of Mahadevi w/o Anneppa. In the crossexamination of PW.1, the defendants have not specifically suggested that the plaintiff is the daughter of Anneppa of Hebbal village nor produced the documents to show that the plaintiff is the daughter of said Anneppa. Further it is pertinent to note that the defendants have not made such suggestion to the PW.1 to substantiate their contention. 20. The Lower Appellate Court further recorded a finding that, in the cross examination DW.1 shown ignorance that the plaintiff is the daughter of Husenappa and after the death of Husenappa mother of plaintiff contracted another marriage. If the plaintiff is not the daughter of Husenappa the DW.1 would have denied the same instead of showing ignorance. Further DW.1 in the crossexamination shown ignorance that when the plaintiff was aged about 56 years the father of plaintiff Husenappa died. The DW.1 has not denied the same. Therefore, it shows that though the DW.1 had knowledge about the relationship of the plaintiff with her family, but purposefully shown ignorance. 21. The Lower Appellate Court further recorded a finding that, as per Ex.P.2 RTC extract of the year 1968-69 name of Peerappa is appearing in column No.9. As per Ex.P.3 RTC extract name of Peerappa is appearing. As per Ex.D.1 Khasra Pahani of the year 1955-56 to 1957-58 name of Peerappa is appearing. As per Ex.D.2 Khasra Pahani of the year 1958-59 to 1960-61 name of Peerappa is appearing. As per Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4 RTCD extracts of the year 1963-64 to 1968-69 name of Peerappa is appearing. DW.1 in the crossexamination admitted that her husband being the elder son of Peerappa his name has been entered in revenue records. Therefore, it shows that suit schedule property belongs to Peerappa. As per Ex.D.3 and Ex.D.4 RTCD extracts of the year 1963-64 to 1968-69 name of Peerappa is appearing. DW.1 in the crossexamination admitted that her husband being the elder son of Peerappa his name has been entered in revenue records. Therefore, it shows that suit schedule property belongs to Peerappa. Though the defendants have taken contention that the plaintiff is daughter of Anneppa, but not proved the same. 22. The Lower Appellate Court further recorded a finding that, the defendants have not produced any material documents on record to prove that plaintiff is not the member of joint family. Accordingly, appeal came to the dismissed. 23. The material on record clearly depicts that, both the Courts below have concurrently held that the suit schedule properties are belongs to Peerappa and he had two sons by name Husenappa and Basanna. The said fact is not disputed by the defendants in their written statement. The Ex.P.4 genealogy tree is denied by the defendants, but not produced any contra material documents to disbelieve the genealogy tree is not correct. The oral evidence of PW.1 to 4 and material documents Ex.P.1 to 3 clearly depicts that the plaintiff is the member of joint family and suit schedule property is the ancestral property of plaintiff and defendants and there was no partition in the joint family of plaintiff and defendant No.1. 24. Though Defendant No.2 filed written statement for setting the agreement dated 25.06.2008. The same is not pleaded by defendant No.1 in the written statement nor stated anything in the evidence. Admittedly, the defendant No.2 not stepped into the witness box. Even after decree granted ½ share to defendant No.2, has not filed any appeal. Therefore, he accepted the decree. 25. Both the Courts below concurrently held that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the coparceners of the Hindu Undivided Joint Family and suit schedule property is the ancestral property of plaintiff and defendants and there was no partition. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for ½ share in the suit schedule property. Accordingly, decreed the suit based on the legal evidence on record. Such a finding of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with by this Court exercising the powers under the provisions of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure as there are no substantial questions of law involved in the present appeal. Accordingly, decreed the suit based on the legal evidence on record. Such a finding of fact recorded by the Courts below cannot be interfered with by this Court exercising the powers under the provisions of Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure as there are no substantial questions of law involved in the present appeal. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission without reference to the respondents. Ordered accordingly. In view of disposal of main appeal, I.A.1/2018 for stay does not survive for consideration and stands dismissed.