JUDGMENT 1. The dispute in this appeal is confined to the rejection of the claim of the plaintiffs for partition and division of B schedule properties comprised of the following items namely, Agricultural immovable properties situated at Belairu Village, Mangaluru Taluk and comprised in: Sl.No. S.No. Extent (A-C) 1 38-12E1 1.08 (As per RTC.38-12E1P2) 2 38-25 0.38 3 38-1A 0.77 4 31-3 0.50 5 39-1A2B 0.13 6 39-2B 0.45 7 39-3B 0.68 8 39-6B 1.10 9 39-5B 0.01 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in this judgment in the same ranking as in the original suit. 3. Appellants herein as plaintiffs before the Trial Court, sought partition of the plaint A and B schedule properties on the specific pleading that the A schedule and B schedule properties were the chalageni properties of late Somayya Shetty. The said Somayya Shetty had four children by name Bhaskara Shetty - husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 5; Jalaja Shetty - mother of defendant Nos.1 to 3; Lalitha (defendant No.4) and Sumathi (defendant No.5). In respect of A schedule properties, late Somayya Shetty was granted occupancy rights by orders of the Land Tribunal dated 05.10.1981. In respect of B schedule properties, defendant No.1 Smt.Umavathi Shetty filed an application in Form No.7 and occupancy rights was granted to her and defendant Nos.2 and 3 as per order dated 07.02.1979. Contending that both these orders enure to the benefit of all the legal heirs of late Somayya Shetty, plaintiffs sought partition and division of A and B schedule properties. 4. On entering appearance, defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 filed a joint written statement inter alia contending that the schedule B properties are the exclusive tenanted lands of late Shyama Shetty and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of these properties. These properties are not partible and plaintiffs do not have any right or share in the said B schedule properties. Defendant No.4 filed a separate statement of objections disputing the claim of the plaintiffs. 5. Based on these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that plaint B schedule immovable properties are joint right properties of parties to the suit and originally held on chalageni right by Somayya Shetty? Defendant No.4 filed a separate statement of objections disputing the claim of the plaintiffs. 5. Based on these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that plaint B schedule immovable properties are joint right properties of parties to the suit and originally held on chalageni right by Somayya Shetty? (2) Whether the defendants 1 to 3 prove that plaint B schedule property belongs to them jointly and personally? (3) Whether defendants 1 to 3 prove that they have made huge improvements in B schedule property? (4) What is the income from plaint A and B schedule properties? (5) Whether the parties are entitled for share in plaint A and B schedule properties? If so what share, in which of the properties? (6) What Order or Decree? 6. Plaintiff No.1 examined herself as PW.1 and produced in evidence 26 documents marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P26. Defendant No.1 examined herself as DW.1 and relied on 14 documents marked as Ex.D1 to Ex.D14. 7. Considering the above evidence, by the impugned judgment, the Trial Court partly decreed the suit, allotting 1/4th share in A schedule properties to the plaintiffs and 1/4th share to defendant Nos.1 to 3 collectively and defendant Nos.4 and 5 each. Claim of the plaintiffs for partition and division of B schedule properties was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of the claim for partition of B schedule properties, plaintiffs have preferred this appeal. 8. I have heard Sri.A.Keshava Bhat, learned counsel appearing for Sri.K.Shashikanth Prasad, learned counsel for appellants and Sri.K.Chandranath Ariga, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 9. Learned counsel for appellants has assailed the findings of the trial court mainly on the ground that defendant No.1 was not the tenant of B Schedule property. Before the Tribunal, she admitted that her mother was the tenant of the aforesaid properties. But, no documents were produced before the Land Tribunal to show that B schedule properties were cultivated by the mother of the first defendant in her own name. Contrary to this stand, in the course of her evidence, defendant No.1 came up with a plea that B schedule properties were taken on lease by her father late Shyama Shetty. But, even in this regard, no documents were produced. Contrary to this stand, in the course of her evidence, defendant No.1 came up with a plea that B schedule properties were taken on lease by her father late Shyama Shetty. But, even in this regard, no documents were produced. Defendant No.1, as on the date of filing Form No.7, was aged 22 years and therefore, in the absence of any material to show that she was in personal cultivation of the suit B schedule properties, trial court ought to have held that the grant made by the Land Tribunal in respect of B schedule properties enure to the benefit of entire family of late Somayya Shetty. 10. Disputing this submission, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents argued that cogent material was placed before the trial court to show that B schedule properties were the chalageni lands of the father of defendant No.1. Since the father of defendant No.1 was aged, Form No.7 was filed by his daughter namely defendant No.1. The RTC produced before the Court at Ex.D10 to Ex.D14 clearly disclose that, in the year 1968-69, B schedule properties were held by the father of defendant No.1 as chalageni tenant. There is abundant evidence to show that only defendant Nos.1 to 3 are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of B schedule properties to the exclusion of plaintiffs. Apparently for the reason, even defendant Nos.4 and 5 - other two daughters of late Somayya Shetty, did not claim any share in B schedule properties. Under the said circumstances, no fault could be found with the order passed by the trial court and thus, sought for dismissal of the appeal. 11. Considering the rival submissions and on going through the impugned judgment, I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this court. 12. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that late Somayya Shetty had claimed occupancy rights in respect of A schedule properties and same was conferred on him as per Ex.P9. It is not in dispute that he died on 27.10.1993. Though occupancy rights in respect of B schedule properties was conferred in the joint names of defendant Nos.1 to 3 on 7.02.1979 as per Ex.P21, during his lifetime, late Somayya Shetty did not challenge the said order nor did he claim any right over B schedule property at any point of time. Though occupancy rights in respect of B schedule properties was conferred in the joint names of defendant Nos.1 to 3 on 7.02.1979 as per Ex.P21, during his lifetime, late Somayya Shetty did not challenge the said order nor did he claim any right over B schedule property at any point of time. The entries in the RTC extracts relied on by defendants at Ex.D10 to Ex.D14 indicate that at an undisputed point of time, name of the father of defendant Nos.1 to 3 was entered in column No.11 of respective RTCs as chalageni tenant. Though there is some discrepancy with regard to the contents of Ex.P21 wherein it is stated that defendant No.1 has stated before the Tribunal that her mother was chalageni tenant of B schedule properties and in her evidence before the court she deposed that her father was the chalageni tenant of B schedule properties, but the said discrepancy cannot be taken advantage by the plaintiffs to claim share in the individual tenancy of defendant Nos.1 to 3. In the absence of any material to show that late Somayya Shetty was the tenant in respect of the B schedule properties, there is no basis for the plaintiffs to sustain their claim for the B schedule properties. Trial Court has considered all these aspects in proper perspective and has answered the very same issues in paras 23 to 27 of the impugned judgment. I am in full agreement with the reasons assigned by the trial court to deny share to the plaintiffs in B schedule property. 13. On reconsideration of the entire material on record, I do not find any reason to differ with the view taken by the trial court. The trial court has considered the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and has rightly negatived the claim of the plaintiffs over B schedule properties by assigning cogent and convincing reasons. I do not find any merit in this appeal. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and decree is confirmed.