JUDGMENT : M.G.UMA, J. The plaintiffs in OS.No.322/2001 on the file of the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Davanagere (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court' for short) have preferred RSA No.1334/2009 impugning the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2007 passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit allotting 1/5 th share each in Item Nos. 1 and 3 of the schedule 'A' property, while rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of Item No.2 and also the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2009 passed in RA No.20/2008 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge and Fast Track Court - II, at Davangere (hereinafter referred to as 'the First Appellate Court' for short), modifying the judgment of the Trial Court by holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/3 rd share along with defendants Nos.2 and 6 in Item Nos.1 and 3, and the plaintiffs along with defendant Nos.2 and 6 are entitled for 1/15 th share in plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Defendant Nos.1 and 4 each are entitled for 1/3 rd share in plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. 2. Defendant Nos.1, 5 and 6 in OS.No.322/2001 referred to above have preferred RSA No.1279/2009 impugning the judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.20/2008 decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs in respect of Item No.2 of schedule 'A' of the plaint. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that, the plaintiffs being the wife and children of late Jagalur Channabasappa, filed the suit in OS.No.322/2001 before the Trial Court against defendant Nos.1 to 6 contending that late Kotrappa, who is the husband of defendant No.1 is the propositus of the family. The said late Kotrappa and defendant No.1 were having 2 children i.e. Jagalur Channabasappa and Rudramma - defendant No.4. Jagalur Channabasappa died in the year 1998 leaving behind him the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 as his legal heirs. Even though plaintiffs and defendants are residing separately, they constitute joint family in respect of the joint family properties described in Schedule 'A' to 'D' attached to the plaint. Jagalur Channabasappa died in the year 1998 leaving behind him the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1, 2 and 6 as his legal heirs. Even though plaintiffs and defendants are residing separately, they constitute joint family in respect of the joint family properties described in Schedule 'A' to 'D' attached to the plaint. The plaint schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the propositus Kotrappa, and after his death it devolved on his wife- defendant No.1, son Jagalur Channabasappa and daughter Rudramma- defendant No.4. However, the khata in respect of the schedule properties were transferred in the name of defendant No.1 being the mother, who was managing the affairs of the family. Even though the plaintiffs made repeated requests to defendant No.1 to divide the schedule properties by metes and bounds, she was not ready and willing to do the same. On the other hand, defendant No.1 sold schedule 'B' property in favour of defendant No.3 under the sale deed dated 11.06.1997 without any right, title or interest. 5. It is stated that Jagaluru Channabasappa, the husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of other plaintiffs had sold 'C' schedule property on 12.06.1997, during his lifetime in favour of defendant No.4, and the said sale deed is not binding on the plaintiffs. Therefore, it is contented that the cause of action for the suit for partition and separate possession had arisen and accordingly, plaintiffs prayed for judgment anddecree for partition and separate possession of all the schedule properties. 6. Schedule 'A' attached to the plaint describes two landed properties and a house property situated at Halebisaleri Village, Davanagere Taluk with the boundaries mentioned therein. Schedule 'B' describes the land bearing Sy.No.13/P measuring 34 guntas situated at Bisaleri village, Davanagere Taluk with the boundaries mentioned therein. Schedule 'C' describes land bearing Sy.No.75 measuring 1 acre situated in Bisaleri village, Davanagere Taluk with the boundaries mentioned therein. Schedule 'D' refers to H.M.T Jetter Tractor bearing No.E3556 and Trailer bearing No.E3557 (hereinafter referred to as the schedule properties). 7. Defendant No.1 being the contesting defendant filed the written statement before the Trial Court admitting the relationship between the parties as stated by the plaintiffs. However, it is denied that defendant No.4 is another daughter of Jagaluru Channabasappa, as she is his sister. It is admitted that there were properties owned by the joint family governed by Mitakshara School of Law. However, it is denied that defendant No.4 is another daughter of Jagaluru Channabasappa, as she is his sister. It is admitted that there were properties owned by the joint family governed by Mitakshara School of Law. The other allegations made in the plaint are all denied. The contention of the plaintiffs in paragraph No.7 of the plaint that the 'B' schedule property was sold by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 on 11.06.1997 without the knowledge of the plaintiffs is denied. 8. Defendant No.1 contented that she acquired the land bearing Sy.No.13 measuring 13 acres 7 guntas (i.e., the combined schedule properties in Item No. 2 in 'A Schedule' and Item No.4 in 'B Schedule'), from one Shivarudrappa for lawful consideration and she was in actual possession and enjoyment of the same since 08.11.1966. The entire consideration amount was paid by defendant No.1 from her parental family. Thus, it was her self-acquired property in which, none of the members of the family were having any right, title or interest. The said property acquired by defendant No.1 in her individual capacity was never merged with the other properties of the joint family at any point of time. Therefore, the plaintiffs and other defendants cannot claim any right over the same. 9. It is contented that defendant No.1 sold 34 guntas of land in Sy.No.13 out of 13.07 acres (i.e., Item No.4 in suit schedule 'B' property) in favour of defendant No.3 for a valid consideration under the sale deed dated 11.06.1997. The purchaser - defendant No.3 was put in possession of the same. The khata was also mutated in his name. This was in exercise of the right of defendant No.1 against her self-acquired property. The plaintiffs cannot question the same. 10. It is contented that Item No.1 and Item No.3 of 'A' schedule property and Item No.5 of 'C' schedule property are the joint family properties of the husband of defendant No.1. After the death of her husband-Kotrappa, her son Channabasappa i.e., the husband of plaintiff No.1 sold 1 acre of land in Sy.No.75 (i.e., Item No.5 in 'C Schedule' property) in favour of defendant No.4 under the sale deed dated 12.06.1997. The said sale was for a legal necessity i.e. to meet the medical expenses of said Channabasappa. On that ground also, plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the said property. 11. The said sale was for a legal necessity i.e. to meet the medical expenses of said Channabasappa. On that ground also, plaintiffs are not entitled for any share in the said property. 11. Defendant No.1 contended that after the death of Channabassappa, plaintiff No.1 went to her parental house and started residing there. She was having hostile attitude towards defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 contended that she has gifted 10 acres of land out of 12 acres 13 guntas on the western side of Sy.No.13 (i.e., a portion of item No.2 of 'Schedule A' property) in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 under the registered gift deed dated 14.06.2002. Since the plaintiffs are not having any right over Sy.No.13, they cannot claim partition and separate possession over the same. 12. Defendant No.1 also contended that she has discharged the liability of the family after the death of her husband, and all the legal representatives are liable to reimburse the same. It is also contented that the vehicle mentioned in schedule 'D' was already sold in favour of Channabasappa, the husband of defendant No.4 in the year 1999 in order to discharge the debt that was due on the vehicle. Therefore, it is contented that it is only Item Nos.1 and 3 of 'A' schedule property, which are available for partition and defendant No.1 is ready to effect the partition. Accordingly, she prays for passing appropriate orders. 13. Defendant No.3 filed the written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiffs. However, while admitting the relationship between the parties, it is contended that defendant No.1 had sold schedule 'B' property to him, and the husband of plaintiff No.1 who is the father of other plaintiffs and defendant No.2 had signed the said sale deed as witnesses, which is in respect of 34 guntas of land in Sy.No.13, which totally measures 13.07 acres. Therefore, it is contented that schedule 'B' property is not available for partition and accordingly, prays for dismissal of the suit in respect of the same. 14. On the basis of these pleadings the following issues came to be framed by the Trial Court: 1. Whether plaintiffs prove that, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants? 2. Whether the first defendant proves that, the Gift Deed, executed in favour of the defendant Nos.5 and 6 only with consent of the plaintiffs? 3. Whether plaintiffs prove that, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants? 2. Whether the first defendant proves that, the Gift Deed, executed in favour of the defendant Nos.5 and 6 only with consent of the plaintiffs? 3. Whether the defendant No.4 prove that, she is the absolute owner of plaint 'C' schedule properties? 4. Whether the defendant No.3 proves that, he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule 'B' properties? 5. What order or decree? 15. Plaintiffs examined PWs.1 and PW2 and got marked Exs.P1 to 10 in support of their contentions. The defendants examined DWs.1 to DW7 and got marked Exs.D1 to 25 in support of his defence. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered Issue No.1 partly in the affirmative, holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for 1/15 th share in Item Nos.1 and 3 of suit 'A' schedule property. Issue No.2 was held as "does not arise for consideration". Issue Nos.3 and 4 were held in the affirmative. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiffs was decreed in-part allotting 1/5 th share each to the plaintiffs in Item Nos.1 and 3 of the 'A' schedule property, from out of the share of deceased Channabasappa. 16. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred RA.No.20/2008. The First Appellate Court on re- appreciation of the materials on record came to the conclusion that Item No.2 of plaint 'A' schedule and the 'B' schedule properties are also joint family properties. The plaintiffs and defendants No.2 and 6, being the wife and children of late Jagaluru Channabasappa, are jointly entitled for 1/3 rd share in the same. It is also held that the wife and children of late Jagaluru Channabasappa i.e., plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 6 each are entitled for 1/15 th share in the plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Defendant Nos.1 and 4 each are entitled for 1/3 rd share in plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. It is held that the property described in Schedule 'D' is not available for partition. It is also held that the dispute in respect of 'C' schedule property is amicably settled out of Court. Hence, the same is also not available for partition. 17. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred RSA No.1334/2009 and defendant Nos.1, 5 and 6 have preferred RSA No.1279/2009. 18. It is also held that the dispute in respect of 'C' schedule property is amicably settled out of Court. Hence, the same is also not available for partition. 17. Being aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have preferred RSA No.1334/2009 and defendant Nos.1, 5 and 6 have preferred RSA No.1279/2009. 18. This Court vide order dated 22.01.2010, formulated the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the lower appellate Court was justified in quantifying the share of the parties contrary to the tenor of Section 6 and 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 2. Whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in overlooking that defendant No.1 had become the absolute owner of item No.2 of the suit schedule property in terms of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? 3. Whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit insofar as "C" schedule properties are concerned on the say of the plaintiff that the matter had been settled out of Court in the absence of such consent on behalf of the other parties to the suit. 19. Heard Sri. K.Dhiraj Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. Dheeraj, learned counsel for Sri. Sanath Kumar Shetty K, learned counsel for Caveator/Respondent No.1 to 3 and Sri. Rajshekar K, learned counsel for respondent No.6 in RSA No.1279/2009. In RSA No.1334/2009, heard Sri. Dheeraj, learned counsel for Sri. Sanath Kumar Shetty, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri. Aravind H, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri.K.Dhiraj Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 20. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that they are the wife and children of late Jagaluru Channabasappa. Defendant No.6 is also the son of plaintiff No.1 and Jagaluru Channabasappa. Defendant No.1 is the mother of Jagaluru Channabasappa and the family had joint family properties described in Schedule 'A' to 'B' and the plaintiffs claimed for partition and separate possession of their shares by metes and bounds. 21. During the pendency of appeal, defendant No.1 had died. She had bequeathed Item No.2 of schedule 'A' in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 under the registered gift deed - Ex.P8 dated 14.06.2002. 21. During the pendency of appeal, defendant No.1 had died. She had bequeathed Item No.2 of schedule 'A' in favour of defendant Nos.5 and 6 under the registered gift deed - Ex.P8 dated 14.06.2002. Furthermore, schedule 'C' property measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.75 was sold by Jagaluru Channabasappa, who is none other than the husband of plaintiff No.1 and the father of other plaintiffs in favour of defendant No.4 under the sale deed dated 12.06.1997 produced as per Ex.P7. 34 guntas of land in Sy.No.13/P referred to in schedule 'B' was sold by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.3 under the sale deed dated 11.06.1997 produced as per Ex.P6. None of these documents are disputed by the plaintiffs. Exs.P6 and P7 are the registered sale deeds that are executed much before filing of the suit. Interestingly, there is reference to these sale deeds in the plaint and no reliefs are sought in respect of the same. 22. Learned counsel for the defendants placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Sri. Ganapati Santaram Bhosale Vs. Ramachandra Subbarao Kulkarni , ILR 1985 KAR 1115 wherein, the Division Bench of this Court has highlighted the settled position of law that in a suit for partition by a Hindu coparcener, it is not necessary for him to seek the relief of setting aside of the sale. But it is sufficient if he asks for a share in the joint family properties by seeking a declaration that he is not bound by the alienations that are made earlier to the filing of this suit. 23. The said proposition of law is once again highlighted in MFA No.100407/2021 connected with MFA No.100408/2021 vide Judgment dated 16.12.2021 by referring to the decision in Ganapati Santaram Bhosale (supra) and held that it is not required to seek cancellation of the sale deed when the plaintiff is not a party to the sale deed. But it is sufficient if a declaration is sought to ignore the registered deed. This position of law is very well settled. In view of the settled position of law, since the plaintiffs have not sought for declaration to ignore Exs.P6 and P7 in respect of schedule 'B' and 'C' properties, they are not entitled for any relief in respect of the same. 24. This position of law is very well settled. In view of the settled position of law, since the plaintiffs have not sought for declaration to ignore Exs.P6 and P7 in respect of schedule 'B' and 'C' properties, they are not entitled for any relief in respect of the same. 24. There is no serious dispute about the fact that defendant No.1 after the death of her son had sold schedule 'D' property with the knowledge of plaintiff No.1- wife of Jagaluru Channabasappa, in favour of the husband of defendant No.4 for discharging the debt that was due on the vehicle. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief in respect of the same. 25. It is the contention of defendant No.1 that Item No.2 of Schedule 'A' is her self-acquired property. Defendant No.1 has examined herself as DW2 and also examined other witnesses and produced the revenue records in respect of the said property to show that, from several years, the same were standing in the name of defendant No.1. It is pertinent to note that even during the lifetime of Kotarappa - the husband of defendant No.1, Item No.2 of 'A' schedule was standing in her name. There is absolutely no other explanation given by the plaintiffs as to why this item was standing in the name of defendant No.1. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief or any share over the same. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled only in respect of Item Nos.1 and 3 of 'A' schedule property by metes and bounds. 26. Learned counsel for the appellants and respondents have jointly filed a memo showing final share allocation for which, the parties are entitled to and the same is placed on record. However, the shares worked out in the memo is modified in accordance with law by applying the principles of law in Vineeta Sharma vs Rakesh Sharma and others, AIR 2020 SC 3717 . 27. I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court. The Trial Court on proper appreciation of the materials on record arrived at a right conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for share only in Item Nos.1 and 3 of the schedule 'A' properties. 27. I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as well as by the First Appellate Court. The Trial Court on proper appreciation of the materials on record arrived at a right conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for share only in Item Nos.1 and 3 of the schedule 'A' properties. However, the First Appellate Court committed an error in ignoring Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act in respect of Item No.2 of the Schedule 'A' property and also ignored Exs.P6 and P7, where under, portions of the properties are sold much prior to the filing of the suit and in respect of which no declaration is sought by the plaintiffs. Under such circumstances, the substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 in the negative, and No.3 in the affirmative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) RSA No. 1279 of 2009 and RSA No. 1334 of 2009 are allowed in-part with costs. (ii) The Judgment and decree dated 20.06.2009 passed in R.A.No.20/2008 by the learned Additional District Judge and FTC - II, Davanagere, is set aside. (iii) The Judgment and decree dated 14.12.2007 passed in OS.No.322/2001 by the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Davanagere is modified as under: (a) The suit of the plaintiffs is decreed in-part. (b) It is held that plaintiff No.1 is entitled for 16/216 share, plaintiff Nos.2, 3 and defendant Nos.2 and 6 are entitled for 21/216 shares each and defendant No.4 is entitled for 116/216 share in Item Nos.1 and 3 of suit Schedule 'A' properties. Draw preliminary decree accordingly. Registry to send back Trial Court Records along with the copy of this judgment and the decree.