JUDGMENT : The plaintiffs have filed the above noted second appeal questioning the judgment and decree dated 10.08.2016 passed in R.A. No. 190/2014 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kolar, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.09.2014 passed in O.S. No. 521/2006 on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Kolar. 2. The facts leading to this case are as under: Present appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession in O.S. No. 521/2006. The contention of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court is that the suit schedule property was originally owned by propositor Ganganna who was the grandfather of plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3. The plaintiffs would aver in the plaint that after the death of propositor Ganganna the suit schedule property was mutated in the name of defendant No. 1 who is the widow of Ganganna. It is the case of plaintiffs that, plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule property. The plaintiffs averred in the plaint that though the defendants are not the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, in collusion with each other are trying to alienate the suit schedule property with a view to deny the shares of the plaintiffs. Hence, present appellants were constrained to file suit for partition and separate possession in O.S. No. 521/2006. 3. It is relevant to note that during the pendency of the suit defendant No. 1 died leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendants as Class1 heirs. 4. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, on receipt of suit summons, filed written statement. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint and it was their specific contention in the written statement that the State Government formed sites in Government Kharab survey number and accordingly plot No. 61 measuring 45 X 30 situated at Veeranjaneyanagar was granted in favour of deceased defendant No. 1 on 01.04.1977. Accordingly, grant certificate was issued by Block Development Officer, Kolar, by his order bearing No. LND/S/38197576. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 further contended that defendant No. 1 was in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. It is defendant No.1 who constructed the house in the vacant site. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 further contended that defendant No.1, out of love and affection towards defendant Nos. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 further contended that defendant No. 1 was in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. It is defendant No.1 who constructed the house in the vacant site. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 further contended that defendant No.1, out of love and affection towards defendant Nos. 2 and 3, has gifted the suit schedule property under two different registered gift deeds. Hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. The Trial Court, based on the rival contentions of the parties, framed the following issues: I. Whether the plaintiffs prove that he herself and defendants are the members of Hindu Undivided Joint Family? II. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that the suit schedule property is the ancestral and joint family property of themselves and defendants and originally belongs to his grandfather Sri. Ganganna? III. Whether the plaintiffs further prove that they are in joint possession of the suit schedule property along with defendants? IV. Whether the plaintiffs further proves that they are entitled for shares in the suit schedule properties? If so, to what extent? V. Whether the defendant No.2 and 3 proves that suit schedule property is the separate property of Smt. Muniyamma (defendant No. 1) by virtue of grant made by the government on 01.04.1997 in her favour? VI. Whether the defendant No.2 and 3 proves they became the absolute owners of the suit schedule property by virtue of gift made by Smt. Muniyamma (defendant No. 1) in their favour through two separate Registered Gift Deeds on 24.05.2007? VII. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder and misjoinder of proper and necessary parties? VIII. Whether the suit is bad for noninclusion of all the joint family properties? IX. What order or decree? 6. The Trial Court while dealing with issue No. 5 examined the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. On examination of Ex.P.4 which is house/land tax assessment list and Ex.P.5 which is the demand register extract pertaining to suit schedule property for the year 199798 issued by the City Municipality, Kolar, was of the view that the suit schedule property was granted to defendant No. 1 and accordingly the same was standing in the name of defendant No. 1 as owner and possessor. While referring to these documents the Trial Court was of the view that the plaintiffs have not been able to place any cogent and clinching evidence to indicate that suit schedule property originally belonged to propositor Ganganna. The Trial Court was of the view that except their self sworn testimony and pleadings in the plaint that the suit schedule property was owned by Ganganna, the plaintiffs have not placed any clinching documentary evidence to indicate that the suit schedule property was ancestral property of plaintiffs and defendants. The Trial Court having examined the rebuttal evidence placed by the defendants on record vide Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.23 proceeded to dismiss the suit. 7. The appellants/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court preferred an appeal in R.A. No. 120/2014. The appellate Court, on reappreciation of the entire evidence on record, has proceeded to hold that deceased defendant No. 1 was the absolute owner of suit schedule property which could be gathered from Ex.D.14 which is the original grant certificate produced by defendant Nos. 2 and 3. Since the suit schedule property was granted to deceased defendant No. 1, it is to be treated as self acquired property of deceased defendant No.1. The appellate Court took note of the fact that when the property is granted by the Government, unless there is corroborative evidence to indicate that the grant is for and on behalf of the grantee and the family members, the concept of enuring to the benefit of entire family members cannot be extended in the absence of clinching evidence to that effect. The appellate Court having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record concurred with the reasons assigned by the Trial Court by recording a finding that the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while dismissing the suit does not suffer from any infirmities. Consequently, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would vehemently argue and contend that the plaintiffs by placing clinching evidence on record have established that grant made in favour of defendant No.1 would enure to the benefit of the parties of the suit. He would contend that the grant made in favour of defendant No. 1 would enure to the benefit of the joint family. The learned counsel for appellants would also argue that in fact the suit schedule property was owned by propositor Ganganna. He would contend that the grant made in favour of defendant No. 1 would enure to the benefit of the joint family. The learned counsel for appellants would also argue that in fact the suit schedule property was owned by propositor Ganganna. In that view of the matter grant made by the authorities in favour of defendant No. 1 cannot be treated as selfacquired property and since all the parties to the suit were in joint possession of suit schedule property, the Courts below were not at all justified in dismissing the suit filed by the appellants seeking partition in suit schedule property. 9. The above contention of the learned counsel for appellant is not tenable. The evidence on record clearly indicates that it was a grant made in favour of defendant No.1 under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. There is absolutely no material on record to indicate that even defendant No.1 had preexisting right or acquired right over the property in question. For the first time the authorities proceeded to grant the suit schedule property in favour of defendant No. 1. On perusal of the grant certificate it is clearly evident that it was exclusively granted to deceased defendant No. 1. In that view of the matter, defendant No. 1 acquired valid title, right and it was her selfacquired property. In this background the plaintiffs being the daughterinlaw and grandchildren, legal heirs of second son – deceased Krishnappa and third son – late Sathyanarayana cannot assert any right or title over the suit schedule property. 10. During trial, the appellants/plaintiffs have tried to make out a new case by contending that they are in possession of the suit property and further, a contention is raised by the appellants/plaintiffs that they have constructed a hut in the suit property even much prior to grant in favour of the deceased defendant No.1. This oral assertion in the oral evidence is in absence of pleadings to that effect. Both the Courts have dealt with this part of evidence and have recorded a finding that the oral evidence led by the appellants/plaintiffs to the effect that they have constructed a hut much prior to grant in favour of deceased defendant No.1 is in absence of pleadings to that effect and the said oral evidence is inadmissible. Both the Courts have dealt with this part of evidence and have recorded a finding that the oral evidence led by the appellants/plaintiffs to the effect that they have constructed a hut much prior to grant in favour of deceased defendant No.1 is in absence of pleadings to that effect and the said oral evidence is inadmissible. Both the Courts are of the view that the appellants cannot be permitted to travel beyond pleadings and in that view of the matter, both the Courts have rightly negatived the subsequent contention raised by the appellants/plaintiffs during trial. 11. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 by way of rebuttal evidence have also produced the registered gift deeds executed by deceased defendant No. 1. On perusal of these registered gift deeds it is evident that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have acquired right and title to the suit schedule property pursuant to the registered gift deeds to the extent of half share each. 12. The judgment and decree of the Courts below are in accordance with law and both the judgments do not suffer from any infirmity. Though the appellants have raised various grounds and have formulated a substantial question of law, this Court is of the view that the grounds raised are devoid of merits and would not give rise to any substantial question of law in the above noted appeal. In the result, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.