JUDGMENT : This second appeal is filed by the plaintiff in Original Suit No.216 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapura decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, whereby the defendant No.2 has preferred Regular Appeal No.181 of 2012 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Doddaballapura, Bangalore (Rural) District, wherein the appeal came to be allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, plaintiff has filed this second appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 3. The plaint averments are that the plaintiff and defendants constitute Hindu Undivided Joint Family and late Veeranna and the first defendant-Nagamma, were the parents of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 6. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property bearing Survey No.1/9, 63/1, 63/5, 64/2, 69/5, 69/7, 71/6 and 75/3 situated at Channaveranahalli, Doddaballapura Taluk; and another property bearing survey No.51/2 at Halekote village, Doddaballapura Taluk and the house property situated at Channaveranahalli, as well as, the vacant site No.9 in Survey No.8 situated at Bangalore (North) Taluk, are the ancestral and joint family property of late Veeranna and except property bearing survey No.51/2 and the vacant site bearing No.9 in survey No.8 of Hebbal which are purchased in the name of the second defendant out of the joint family funds, all other properties have been fallen to the share of Veeranna in partition that took place in the year 1950 between late Veeranna and his brother. It is further stated in the plaint that the property bearing No.9 in Survey No.8 of Hebbal was purchased in the year 1978 and the property in survey No.51/2 of Halekote was purchased in the year 1983, both in the name of the second defendant, from out of the joint family funds. It is further averred in the plaint that Veeranna died on 17th June, 2001 and the second defendant has executed an agreement dated 19th August, 2004 to the effect that properties are being commonly enjoyed by all the members of the joint family. It is further averred in the plaint that Veeranna died on 17th June, 2001 and the second defendant has executed an agreement dated 19th August, 2004 to the effect that properties are being commonly enjoyed by all the members of the joint family. It is further stated in the plaint that as defendant No.2 is taking advantage of the documents pertaining to survey No.51/2 and vacant site No.9 in Survey No.8 at Hebbal, which are acquired out of the joint family funds, the plaintiff has filed Original Suit No.228 of 2005 against the second defendant for relief of mandatory injunction seeking dispossession from the second defendant in respect of property No.84 situated at Channaveranahalli, which has been purchased by the father of the plaintiff (late Veeranna) by his self-efforts and the same has been given to the plaintiff; and the said suit is pending consideration before the competent Court. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff being eldest son of late Veeranna, was looking after the entire family affairs and subsequently, the second defendant has been authorised to manage the joint family affairs. It is further stated that the second defendant made money out of the joint family property and is trying to misuse the joint family property and as the second defendant was not inclined to divide the property and as such, the plaintiff has filed Original Suit No.216 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Doddaballapur seeking partition of 1/6th share in all the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit, defendant No.1-Nagamma died. Defendants No.2 to 3 and 6 entered appearance. The second defendant filed detailed statement denying the plaint averments and submitted that the plaintiff was working in John Polal Pvt. Ltd. and retired from service and further submitted that plaintiff has severed from the joint family status of late Veeranna. It is further averred in the written statement that the fourth defendant was working in Lady Curzon and Bowring Hospital, Shivajinagar, Bangalore and he is also severed from the joint family status. The fifth defendant is working in Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation (Priyadarshini Handlooms), a Government of Karnataka Undertaking, and the said defendant has also severed from the joint family status. The fifth defendant is working in Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation (Priyadarshini Handlooms), a Government of Karnataka Undertaking, and the said defendant has also severed from the joint family status. It is the case of the second defendant that the plaintiff, in collusion with defendants No.4 and 5, has not included certain properties of the joint family, viz. site bearing No.27 measuring 30 x 40 feet situated at III Cross, Venkatappa Extension and the plaintiff has transferred the khata of the said property in favour of his son B.T. Mohan and the 2nd defendant has also taken a plea that the plaintiff is the owner of the house property bearing door No.18, I Main Road, Chikkalsandra, Bangalore-34; and also the property standing in the name of one Parvatamma (wife of fourth defendant). It is the case of the defendant No.2 that the aforesaid property ought to have been included in the suit schedule property and the plaintiff has deliberately excluded the same and accordingly, the defendant No.2 submitted that the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-inclusion of aforementioned properties and sought for dismissal of the suit. Considering the pleadings on record, the trial Court has formulated issues for its consideration. Plaintiff adduced evidence as PW1 and examined another witness-Shri Chandrappa as PW2 and produced 17 documents and the same were marked as Exhibits P1 to P17. Defendant No.2 was examined as DW1 and has produced 11 documents which were marked as Exhibits D1 to D11. The trial Court, after considering the material on record and on consideration of oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties, by its judgment and decree dated 29th May, 2012 decreed the suit and thereby ordered that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the second defendant has preferred Regular Appeal No.181 of 2012 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Doddaballapura, Bangalore (Rural) District, Bangalore and the appeal was resisted by the plaintiff however the respondents No.2 to 5 therein were placed ex-parte. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciation of the material on record, allowed the appeal filed by the defendant No.2 and accordingly set aside the judgment and decree dated 29th May, 2012 passed by the trial Court in OS No.216 of 2006. The First Appellate Court, after re-appreciation of the material on record, allowed the appeal filed by the defendant No.2 and accordingly set aside the judgment and decree dated 29th May, 2012 passed by the trial Court in OS No.216 of 2006. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. 4. This Court, by order dated 08th December, 2015, formulated the following substantial question of law: “Whether the first appellate Court is right in dismissing entire suit for non-joinder of some of the properties to the suit schedule and whether it has committed any legal error in allowing the appeal?” 5. I have heard Shri Indu Shekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Respondents are served and unrepresented. 6. Shri Indu Shekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the First Appellate Court has not properly appreciated the facts of the case of the plaintiff so also materials produced before the trial Court. He further submitted that it was only the defendant No.2 who had contested the suit and defendant No.2 had not disputed the schedule properties except items No.9 and 12, being the joint family property and therefore, the First Appellate Court has committed serious error by interfering with the well-reasoned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. He further contended that the trial Court rightly held that the defendant No.2 has failed to prove that items No.9 and 12 are his self-acquired property and the said finding was wrongly interfered with by the First Appellate Court and therefore, the finding recorded by the First Appellate Court requires to be set aside in this appeal. 7. I have carefully examined the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the entire records. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has filed the suit seeking 1/6th share in the suit schedule property left by his deceased father-late Veeranna. 8. The genealogical tree of the parties reads as under: GENEALOGICAL TREE Veeranna (Dead) Nagamma (Dead) Thimmaiah 65 years Doddiraiah 63 years Erappa 61 years Muttahanumaiah 59 years Muttaiah 56 years Muttamma 49 years 9. Perusal of the genealogical tree would indicate that late Veeranna and defendant No.1-Nagamma had six children of which, plaintiff is the first son and the contesting defendant No.2 is the second son. Perusal of the genealogical tree would indicate that late Veeranna and defendant No.1-Nagamma had six children of which, plaintiff is the first son and the contesting defendant No.2 is the second son. Perusal of the written statement as well as the evidence of DW1 would clearly indicate that he has not disputed the relationship between the parties, however, it is the contention of the second defendant that the plaintiff has not included certain property, viz. site No.27 situated at Venkatappa Extension, Bangalore referred to as ‘A’ Schedule property; house property bearing No.18 situated at Chikkalsandra, Bangalore referred to as ‘B’ Schedule property; and property standing in the name of the wife of fourth defendant by name Parvatamma i.e. property No.134 situated at Hebbal, Bangalore referred to as ‘C’ Schedule property in the written statement. In view of the admission made by the DW1, the controversy between the plaintiff and defendant No.2 is with regard to property bearing items No.9 and 12 of the suit schedule property. The plaintiff has produced original sale deed dated 26th July, 1978 marked as Exhibit P15, which reveals that the defendant No.2 has purchased item No.12 by registered sale deed dated 26th July, 1978 and Exhibit P16 (certified copy of the registered sale deed) dated 06th December, 1983 with respect to item No.9, whereunder the said property has been purchased in the name of defendant No.2 out of the joint family funds. Though the defendant No.2 has stated that items No.9 and 12 are self-acquired property, however, the trial Court has considered the same at paragraphs 14 to 16 of the impugned judgment and has held that the second defendant has not proved the fact that items No.9 and 12 are his self-acquired property and held that, there was no independent income for him to purchase those property and accordingly, ordered that items No.9 and 12 are the joint family property of late Veeranna and in this regard, having considered the evidence adduced by DW1 and PW1, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and answered issue No.2 against the defendant No.2 holding that the suit schedule items No.9 and 12 are the joint family property and defendant No.2 failed to prove the factum that those properties are purchased on account of his independent income and in that view of the matter, the interference made by the First Appellate Court is without any justification, which requires to be set aside in this appeal. I have also carefully scrutinised the evidence of PW1 and DW1, though the defendant No.2 has alleged that the house property, which claims to be the self-acquired property of the plaintiff, and the wife of the fourth defendant-Parvathamma has purchased the property situated at site No.134 of Hebbal, I have carefully scrutinised Exhibit D1-certified copy of the gift deed dated 25th March, 2006 which had been executed by the plaintiff in favour of his son B.T.Mohan, whereunder, the recital of the said deed would clearly indicate that the said property has been purchased by the plaintiff on 12th December, 1979 and the said fact was not denied by the defendant No.2; and he has also admitted in his written statement at paragraph 27 that, the plaintiff was working at John Polal Private Limited and in that view of the matter, the contention raised by the defendant No.2 ought to have been rejected by the First Appellate Court, by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In that view of the matter, the claim made by the defendant No.2 has not been properly re-appreciated by the First Appellate Court while passing the impugned judgment and decree dated 06th August, 2014 and therefore, the First Appellate Court has not properly re-assessed the evidence on record as required under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, I am of the opinion that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is just and proper accepting the fact that property in items No.9 and 12 are the joint family property and in the same, the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 6, are entitled for 1/6th share each in the suit schedule property and in that view of the matter, the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court is liable to set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court requires to be confirmed. 10. It is also pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GANDURI KOTESHWARAMMA & ANOTHER v. CHAKIRI YANADI & ANOTHER reported in AIR 2012 SC 169 has observed that the preliminary decree determine the rights and interest of the parties and it is by a final decree that the immovable property of a Joint Hindu Family is partitioned by metes and bounds and in that view of the matter, the Registry shall draw the decree accordingly, specifying that the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 6 are entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule property. Hence I pass the following: ORDER 1. Appeal is allowed; 2. Judgment and decree dated 06th August, 2014 passed in Regular Appeal No.181 of 2012 passed by the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge at Doddaballapura, Bangalore (Rural) District, Bangalore is set aside; and the judgment and decree dated 29th May, 2012 passed in OS No.216 of 2006 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Doddaballapura is confirmed. 3. Registry shall draw decree accordingly specifying that the plaintiff and the defendants No.2 to 6 are entitled for 1/6th share in the suit schedule property.