JUDGMENT : P.N. DESAI, J. 1. This appeal lays challenge to the judgment dated 26.08.2009 passed by the learned IV Addl. District Judge, Gulbarga in R.A. No. 116/2006, wherein the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 246/2001 dated 10.06.2006 is allowed. 2. The appellant was defendant No. 2 before the trial court and respondent No. 1 was the plaintiff before the trial court. Respondent No. 3 is defendant No. 3 before the trial court. 3. The parties will be referred as 'plaintiff and 'defendants' as per their respective ranks before the trial court. 4. The brief case of the plaintiff before trial court is that the plaintiff is sister of defendant No. 1. Suit properties bearing Sy. No. 93, Hissa No. 1/1 measuring 8 acres 15 guntas and house property bearing No. 1-92/1 are situated at Itga (K) Tq. Gulbarga, are the ancestral properties of their father. Their father Omkarappa was in possession and enjoyment of the properties. Thereafter, he died. Plaintiff and defendant No. 1 are the only legal heirs and both of them have got equal share in the suit properties. There is no family partition between plaintiff and defendant No. 1. The defendant No. 1 without any family necessity and without the knowledge of plaintiff, sold house property to defendant No. 2. It is only a paper transaction. As the defendant No. 1 is denying her share, she filed a suit for partition. 5. Defendant No. 1 has not filed written statement. Only defendant No. 2 filed written statement. Defendant No. 3 remained ex parte. In the written statement, defendant No. 2 has denied that Omkarappa was the Kartha of the family and after the death of Omkarappa, plaintiff and defendant No. 1 succeeded to the properties. He also denied that the suit properties are the ancestral properties and also denied that the plaintiff is having half share in it. Defendant No. 2 contended that he is the bona fide purchaser of the suit property under a registered sale deed in the name of his son. Plaintiff had knowledge about it and she being the daughter of Omkarappa, she has no share in the suit house. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. On the basis of the above, the trial court framed the issues. Plaintiff had knowledge about it and she being the daughter of Omkarappa, she has no share in the suit house. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the suit. 6. On the basis of the above, the trial court framed the issues. There afterwards, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW-1 and got marked six documents as Exs. P1 to P6 and closed her side evidence. On behalf of defendants, defendant No. 2 got examined as DW.2 and another two witnesses were examined as DWs-1 and DW-3 including Mallanna/DW.1 who is the son of defendant No. 2 in whose name, the property was purchased through a registered sale deed dated 14.06.2001 and got marked one document as Ex. D1. 7. The trial court after hearing both sides decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff with costs against defendant No. 1 only and the claim made by plaintiff in respect of declaration of House No. 1-92/1 of Itaga-K Village as illegal and void was dismissed. However, liberty was granted to the plaintiff to make an application at the time of F.D.P. proceedings and get her half share value in plaint item No. 2 property the dwelling house. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed regular appeal in R.A. No. 116/2006. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal modifying the judgment and decree passed by trial court and decreed the suit in full. Aggrieved by the said judgment, defendant No. 2 has filed this regular second appeal. 8. Heard learned counsel Sri G.S. Biradar for Appellants. Sri C.A. Sagar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Mallanna, S/o. Revansiddappa who is the purchaser of suit item No. 2 house property was not made party to the suit and appellant is a bona fide purchaser. It is further contended that there is also a clause in the sale deed purchased by him that if there is any defect in the title, the vendor shall indemnify. So the learned counsel contended that at least half share which defendant No. 1 will get in item No. 2 property shall be adjusted in respect of property purchased by him and regarding the other half share, defendant No. 1 shall compensate the plaintiff. 10. So the learned counsel contended that at least half share which defendant No. 1 will get in item No. 2 property shall be adjusted in respect of property purchased by him and regarding the other half share, defendant No. 1 shall compensate the plaintiff. 10. Against this, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 argued that the First Appellate Court rightly held that such an adjustment made by the trial court is not in accordance with law, because defendant No. 2 has failed to prove that he is a bona fide purchaser of the property. Except producing the registered sale deed, to show that he has made enquiry and that he is a bona fide purchaser, he has not produced any evidence. Therefore, the trial court has rightly set aside that portion of the order and rightly allotted half share in both the properties. The learned counsel argued that no substantial question of law arises to admit the appeal and prays to dismiss the appeal. 11. I have perused the judgment of First Appellate Court and Trial Court. 12. It is evident that, admittedly, the relationship of the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 is not in dispute. They are the sister and brother. Suit properties are also admittedly their ancestral properties. Their father Omkarappa died without there being any partition. Therefore, both the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 have got equal share in the suit schedule properties. Both the trial court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently held that defendant No. 1 has no right or valid title to sell suit item No. 2 property in favour of son of defendant No. 2. The First Appellate Court has also observed that said son Mallanna in whose name the property was purchased by his father is examined before the Court. Therefore, not making him as a party to the suit is of little consequence. Both the trial court and the First Appellate Court have concurrently held that the suit properties are the ancestral properties and both the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 have got equal share. I find no grounds to interfere with such concurrent findings which are based on pleadings and evidence. 13. The appellant/defendant No. 2 has not placed any material to show that he has made bona fide enquiry and purchased the said property. Therefore, such sale is not binding on the plaintiff. I find no grounds to interfere with such concurrent findings which are based on pleadings and evidence. 13. The appellant/defendant No. 2 has not placed any material to show that he has made bona fide enquiry and purchased the said property. Therefore, such sale is not binding on the plaintiff. The plaintiff is entitled for half share and the same is rightly held in her favour by the First Appellate Court: If at all, defendant No. 1 has sold the house property to defendant No. 2, to the extent of half share of defendant No. 1 in item No. 2 suit house, may be allotted to defendant No. 2, in final decree proceedings if filed. But, defendant No. 2 has to make an application to the trial court at the time of final decree proceedings, and it is for the court dealing with FDP proceedings to consider such application, if any, filed in accordance with law. The trial court is at liberty to consider such application, uninfluenced by any observation made by this Court in this appeal. The trial court is at liberty to decide such contention on merits and free to arrive at its conclusion in accordance with law. The learned counsel for appellant stated that there is clause in the sale deed executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 to the effect that, if there is any defect in the title to the properties sold by defendant No. 1, then purchaser is entitled for compensation. If at all there is such recital in sale deed, the defendant No. 2 is entitled for compensation from defendant No. 1 for selling the property with defective title, it is for defendant No. 2 to proceed in accordance with law, if he is advised so and if he is entitled under law. No order in this regard can be passed in this appeal. 14. On analysing the judgment of the trial court and appellate court, it is seen that the trial court has framed proper issues and considered the evidence in proper perspective. The judgment of the trial court regarding suit item No. 2 which was erroneous is set right by the first appellate Court. Both the courts have concurrently held that suit properties are ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and both have equal share. The judgment of the trial court regarding suit item No. 2 which was erroneous is set right by the first appellate Court. Both the courts have concurrently held that suit properties are ancestral properties of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 and both have equal share. The said finding is based on evidence placed before the court. No grounds made out to interfere with such concurrent finding of fact. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal so as to admit the appeal. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I pass the following:- ORDER The appeal is dismissed. In view of facts and circumstances of the case, both the parties shall bear their own costs.