JUDGMENT : CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA The plaintiff in OS.No.153/1997 on the file of the learned Principal Judge (Senior Division), Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred as to 'the Trial Court'), is impugning the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2007, dismissing his suit for partition and separate possession of properties described in three schedules, which was confirmed vide judgment dated 18.08.2009 passed in RA.No.59/2008 on the file of learned District Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore (hereinafter referred as to 'the First Appellate Court'). 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 3. Facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiff filed the suit OS.No.153/1997 against defendant Nos.1 to 7 seeking partition and separate possession of the properties mentioned in schedules-A to C attached to the plaint. In schedule-A, the plaintiff has described ten items of the agricultural lands situated at Arebommanahalli Village, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, comprising various survey numbers and extents, with the boundaries mentioned therein. Schedule-B describes the properties consisting of eight items i.e., item Nos.1 to 4, 7 and 8 which are situated in Bengaluru, and it also includes item Nos.5 and 6 situated in Arebommanahalli village, Thyamagondlu Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, and they comprise of various houses, vacant sites, office premise etc., with boundaries mentioned therein. Schedule-C attached to the plaint describes seven transport buses, one Ambassador Car bearing registration No. KA-02-760, a Premier Padmini Car bearing registration No. KA-01-N-8100 and Mahendra Jeep bearing registration No. KA-01-M-4552 more fully described with their registration numbers. 4. It is the contention of the plaintiff that, one N Muddaiah is the propositus. Seeramma is his wife and they were having four children by name M Narasimhaiah, M Gangaiah @ Gangappa, Chikkanarasimhaiah and Seethappa. Chikkanarasimhaiah and Seethappa were given in adoption and therefore, it was M Narasimhaiah and M Gangaiah @ Gangappa were only the children who are entitled for the properties left behind by their father Muddaiah. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the sons of M Narasimhaiah, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.4 to 6 are the children of M Gangaiah @ Gangappa. Defendant No.7 is the wife of defendant No.1. 5. Defendant Nos.1 to 3 are the sons of M Narasimhaiah, the plaintiff and defendant Nos.4 to 6 are the children of M Gangaiah @ Gangappa. Defendant No.7 is the wife of defendant No.1. 5. It is the contention of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and defendants constitute a joint hindu family owning both movable and immovable properties as described in the schedules. After the death of Muddaiah, his sons M Narasimahaiah and M Gangaiah @ Gangappa continued to be the members of joint family and were enjoying the schedule properties jointly. Both the sons of Muddaiah were carrying transport business at Bengaluru under the name and style of Sri. Lakshmmarasimha Motor Services. From out of the joint family income, certain immovable and movable properties were acquired, which are described in Schedules-A to C. 6. It is contended that father of defendant No.1 was managing the joint family as Kartha. He died on 14.02.1987. After the death of M. Narasimhaiah, it was defendant No.1, the plaintiff along with M. Gangaiah @ Gangappa continued to be members of the joint family. 7. It is contended that on 12.06.1992, defendant Nos.1 and 4 have entered into a partial partition during the life time of M. Gangaiah @ Gangappa. But defendant No.1 had not acted on the said pallu patti. He is also not interested in effecting equitable partition in respect of the schedule properties which are not subject matter of the pallu patti. M.Gangaiah @ Gangappa had died on 23.09.1993. Inspite of that, defendant No.1 was not ready to effect equitable partition. Therefore, the plaintiff approached the Court seeking partition and separate possession of all the properties described in the schedules. 8. Defendant No.1 has appeared before the Trial Court and filed his written statement. He admitted the genealogy and that N Muddaiah was the propositus and the plaintiff and defendants are the members of the family. He contended that on 12.06.1992 there was a panchyath pallu patti as per Ex.D1 to which defendant Nos.1 and 4 are the parties. The said pallu patti is signed by defendant Nos.1 and 4, M. Gangappa @ Gangaiah and the plaintiff. Since there is already partition in respect of the family properties, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the suit. 9. The said pallu patti is signed by defendant Nos.1 and 4, M. Gangappa @ Gangaiah and the plaintiff. Since there is already partition in respect of the family properties, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the suit. 9. Defendant Nos.1 to 7 have filed their written statement by re-iterating the contention that the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in any of the schedule properties and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 10. On the basis of these pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration: "1. Whether the plaintiff proves existence of joint family between him and defendants? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the partial partition as 12.06.1992 is only an arrangement in the family and also the family properties have not been divided under the said partition? 3. Whether the 1 st defendant proves that item No.8 and 9 in 'A' Schedule, item No.1, 2, 3, 5 to 9 in Schedule 'C' are his self acquired properties and item No.1 to 5 in 'A; schedule are the self acquired properties of his father? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and entitled for separate possession of his share? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and partition? 6. What order? Additional Issues 1. Whether defendants prove item No.8 is their self acquired property and plaintiff has no right over this item of the property? 2. Whether suit is properly valued and Court fee paid by plaintiff is correct and proper? Or Whether defendants prove that the plaintiff required to value suit u/s 35(1) CF and SV Act?" 11. The plaintiff examined PWs.1 to 4, got marked Exs.P1 to 34 in support of his contention. The defendants examined DWs.1 and 2, got marked Exs.D1 to 37 in support of their defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered issue Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 in the Negative, while answering issue Nos.3 and additional issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed. 12. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed RA.No.59/2008. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered issue Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5 in the Negative, while answering issue Nos.3 and additional issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed. 12. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed RA.No.59/2008. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of materials on record, came to conclusion that the Trial Court was right in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court. 13. As per the order dated 30.11.2010, the following substantial questions of law were framed: "1. Whether the courts below were justified in accepting the so-called partial partition, in the absence of non-registration and whether the findings of the courts below that certain items of property are the self-acquired property of the respondents would be available for partition even if the joint family properties are available for partition? 2. Whether the appellant is in a position to demonstrate that the findings of fact as regard the self-acquired properties are assailable?" 14. Heard Sri. VF Kumbar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. V Subash Reddy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1(1-4) and 7, and Sri. SV Krishna Swamy, learned counsel of respondent No.3. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 15. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to recitals in Ex.D1, the findings of the Trial Court formed at the end of paragraph No.13 and the conclusion arrived at by the First Appellant Court. 16. Ex.D1 is the panchayath pallu patti dated 12.06.1992. It is an undisputed document, rather, it is admitted by both the parties that the partition was entered into in respect of seven items of the properties between defendant Nos.1 and 4. Defendant No.1 is representing the branch of M Narasimhaiah, where as defendant No.4 was representing the branch of M. Gangappa @ Gangaiah. It is pertinent to note that apart from defendant Nos.1 and 4, M. Gangappa @ Gangaiah and the plaintiff are also signatories to Ex.D1. As per first shara found in Ex.D1, item 5 of the schedule-A is to be divided equally between defendant No.1 and the plaintiff along with half portion of the house standing therein. It is pertinent to note that apart from defendant Nos.1 and 4, M. Gangappa @ Gangaiah and the plaintiff are also signatories to Ex.D1. As per first shara found in Ex.D1, item 5 of the schedule-A is to be divided equally between defendant No.1 and the plaintiff along with half portion of the house standing therein. As per the second shara, except the properties mentioned in Ex.D1, all other properties belongs to the respective parties. 17. If this document is taken into consideration by the Court, definitely there was a partition between the family members. The contention of the plaintiff that there was only a partial partition cannot be accepted, in view of the specific shara to the effect that all other properties are the properties belonging to respective parties. As the plaintiff is also one of the signatory to Ex.D1, he cannot go behind Ex.D1 to contend that there must be partition in respect of all the schedule properties. Hence, the claim of the plaintiff with regard to the schedule properties is liable to be rejected. 18. At the time of addressing arguments, learned counsel for defendant No.1 - respondent contends that even in the written statement filed by defendant No.1, he categorically stated that as per first shara found in Ex.D1, he is ready to hand over half portion in item No.5 of the schedule-A i.e., 6 guntas of land along with half share in the house standing in the property. Defendant No.1(d) - Sri. M Ramu, who is present before the Court also gave instructions to the learned counsel representing him and submitted that he is ready to hand over half share in item No.5 as under taken in Ex.D1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant may be satisfied if half share in item No.5 as per first shara in Ex.D1 is handed over to the him, if in case, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. 19. When all these materials are placed on record, I hold that Ex.D1 is binding on both the plaintiff and defendants and there was already partition. 19. When all these materials are placed on record, I hold that Ex.D1 is binding on both the plaintiff and defendants and there was already partition. Hence, I do not find any reason to accept the contentions taken by the plaintiff, that too when defendant No.1 is ready to hand over half share in item No.5 along with half portion of the house standing in item No.5 of schedule-A property. There will be a direction to him to comply with the same without driving the appellant to another round of litigation. 20. I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Both the Courts have taken into consideration all these materials in a proper perspective and have arrived at a right conclusion. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. Both the Courts are justified in accepting Ex.D1 which is a admitted document to which the plaintiff is also signatory. Hence, I answer both the substantial questions of law in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The appeal is dismissed. (iii) The legal representatives of defendant No.1 who are respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to hand over half portion in item No.5 of the schedule-A property i.e., 6 guntas of land including half share in the house standing therein, in favour of the plaintiff within four weeks from today, without driving the plaintiff to another round of litigation. In view of the facts and circumstances, no order as to cost.