JUDGMENT : R. DEVDAS, J. 1. Delay of 1239 days in filing the RFA Cross Objection No.100012/2025 is condoned. 2. That, the appellants have preferred the above appeal challenging the impugned judgment and decree passed by Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon in O.S. No.143/2017 dated 11.06.2020. 3. The plaintiffs preferred the suit in O.S. No.143/2017 seeking partition and separate possession contending that, a. On 27.09.1947 Melagirigouda expired leaving behind Rudravva. b. On 10.05.1954, Rudravva adopted defendant No.1 by virtue of registered adoption deed dated 10.05.1954 with a condition to enjoy the suit properties till her death and thereafter, the same shall vest with defendant No.1. c. In the year 1973 M.R.No.1969 was affected whereby, it is alleged that Rudravva transfers rights in respect of suit properties in favor of defendant Nos.3, 6 and 7 and husband of defendant Nos.4 and 5 without absolute right and that too by virtue of mere Wardi without any registered deed. d. Defendants No.3, 6 and 7 and husband of defendant No.4 and father of defendant No.5 are born to defendant No.1 through second wife and plaintiff nos.1 and 2 are born to first wife. e. On 29.06.1994, defendant no.1 instituted the suit in O.S.No.32/1994 for partition and separate position against the father of defendant no.4, defendants No.3, 6, 7, plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. On 17.08.1995, defendant No.1 withdrawn the said suit. Ex.P-28 and P-29. Properties involved suit schedule 1 [A, E, G to J, L, N to P, R]. f. In 2001 defendant No.1 instituted the suit in O.S. No.85/2001 for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule A [I, J, M, O, P, Q, R, and T]  which was entered in compromise by virtue of Decree dated 21.04.2001 thereby allotting properties for himself, defendants No.6 and 7 and husband of defendant No.4 without impleading the present plaintiffs/appellants as parties and without including other joint family properties. g. In 2004 plaintiff No.1 instituted the suit in O.S. No.23/2004 against defendants No.1, 2 and plaintiff No.2 seeking partition and separate possession. Same was entered in compromise where by the plaintiff nos.1, 2 and defendants No.1 and 2 entered into compromise properties Schedule A (S, T, J) Sy.no.48/1, Sy.No.69/6, Sy.No.71/1 and Sy.No.62/2. h. In 2017 the plaintiff instituted the present suit bearing O.S. No.147/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon for partition and separate possession. Same was entered in compromise where by the plaintiff nos.1, 2 and defendants No.1 and 2 entered into compromise properties Schedule A (S, T, J) Sy.no.48/1, Sy.No.69/6, Sy.No.71/1 and Sy.No.62/2. h. In 2017 the plaintiff instituted the present suit bearing O.S. No.147/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon for partition and separate possession. i. Defendant No.1 filed written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff. Defendants No.3, 6 and 7 filed written statement denying the adoption and denied the relationship of the plaintiff and the plaintiff have not questioned the compromise decree in O.S No. 85/2001 and they have become owners by virtue of Wardi No.9969 being the absolute owner. j. The trial court framed the following issues : k. The trial court vide judgment dated 11.06.2020, dismissed the suit. Issue No.1 The trial court held that defendant No.1 is the adopted son of Rudravva by virtue of registered adoption deed dated 10.05.1954. Issue No.2- Held that the plaintiffs have proved the genealogy. Issue No.3- It is held that plaintiffs are the legitimate children of defendants No.1 and 2. Issue No.4- It is held that the plaintiff have failed to prove that Rudrawwa has illegally transferred the properties in favor of defendants No.3, 6, 7 and husband of defendant No.4 on the ground that defendants No.1 and 2 never questioned alleged relinquishment at Ex. D2- M.E No.1969. Issue No.5- It is held that defendants No.8 to 16 are bonafide purchasers. Issue No.7- It is held at the suit filed is barred by time and never questioned the sale deed. 4. After lapse of 5 years, the defendants preferred RFA Crob. No.100012/2025 assailing the findings on Issue Nos.2 and 3 which pertains to the relationship of plaintiffs with deceased defendant No.1 on the ground that deceased Somanagouda after the death of Mallavva had married to one Fakkiravva @ Huchchafakkiravva and as such the marriage of deceased Somanagouda with Ratnavva is void. The trial court while deciding issue No.2 and 3 has observed that there is nothing on record to indicate deceased Fakkiravva had no issues. Moreover, DW-2 /defendant No.6 in his cross examination admitted that in order to show the deceased Somanagouda was married to Fakkiravva has not produced either marriage card, voter ID and ration card and also admitted that deceased defendant No.1 was not married to said Fakkiravva. 5. Moreover, DW-2 /defendant No.6 in his cross examination admitted that in order to show the deceased Somanagouda was married to Fakkiravva has not produced either marriage card, voter ID and ration card and also admitted that deceased defendant No.1 was not married to said Fakkiravva. 5. It is also relevant to note that, the appellants have produced certain documents along with interim application No.01/2025 under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, more particularly plaint in O.S. No.128/2024 and also death extract of Mallavva and the marriage card of Ratnavva with deceased defendant No.1 which would indicate that deceased 1st wife of defendant No.1 Mallavva expired on 27.01.1980 and deceased defendant No.1 got married with Ratnavva on 08.02.1980 within 13 days from the death of 1st wife and the appellants have also produced certain documents to substantiate the fact that the appellants are the legitimate children of deceased defendant No.1 with Ratnavva. 6. The appellants have also filed an application No.02/2025 seeking amendment for inclusion of properties in R.S. Nos.48/1, 69/6, 71/1 and 62/2 situated at Attigeri village of Shiggaon Taluk, District Haveri which were through inadvertent were not included in the suit since defendant No.1 was looking after the affairs of the family. 7. The respondents/ defendants have also filed a memo dated 25.11.2025 seeking to include R.S.Nos.42/2, 62/2A, 69/6B and 71/1B situated at Attigeri village of Shiggaon Taluk, District Haveri. 8. The appellants further contends that, the finding of the trial court that the disposal of earlier suits in O.S. No.23/2004 and O.S.No.85/2001 do not entitle the plaintiffs to institute the suit is incorrect in as much as the suit in O.S No.32/1994 was withdrawn by defendant No.1 and in O.S. No.85/2001, the present plaintiffs were not parties and other suit schedule properties were not included in the earlier suits. 9. During pendency of the suit, the defendant No.1 expired on 26.07.2019. The defendant No.2/present respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.03/2025 seeking production of additional evidence contending that deceased defendant No.1 namely Somanagouda during his lifetime had executed a WILL in favour of defendant No.2 on 13.05.2009 and defendant No.2 has obtained probate in P & SC No.13/2020 by virtue of order dated 09.09.2021 by the District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. 10. The defendant No.2/present respondent No.1 filed I.A.No.03/2025 seeking production of additional evidence contending that deceased defendant No.1 namely Somanagouda during his lifetime had executed a WILL in favour of defendant No.2 on 13.05.2009 and defendant No.2 has obtained probate in P & SC No.13/2020 by virtue of order dated 09.09.2021 by the District and Sessions Judge, Haveri. 10. By consent of the parties on both sides, the appeal as well as RFA Cross Objection are allowed in part while setting aside the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 11.06.2020 passed in O.S.no.143/2017 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Shiggaon. The matter stands remanded back to the trial Court to decide the following : i. Whether the disposal of earlier suits in O.S. No.32/1994 and O.S.No.85/2001 and other earlier litigations bars the plaintiffs to institute the suit? ii. Whether the plaintiffs No.1 and 2 are the children born to Ratnavva after the death of Mallavvva and whether they are the legitimate children of deceased defendant No.1? iii. Whether the defendants can claim absolute ownership by virtue of the Wardi in ME.No.664? iv. The trial Court shall permit the appellants and the respondents to include the properties sought to be included by virtue of I.A. No.02/2025 filed by the appellants and memo dated 25.11.2025 filed by the respondents and thereafter to decide the question as to whether the properties which are already subject matter of the suit and newly added properties are ancestral joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants. The trial Court shall permit the appellants and respondents to make necessary amendments in the pleadings and to produce the documents to substantiate their claim to meet the ends of justice and equity. 11. In view of disposal of the appeal and the cross objection, pending other applications in both cases are also disposed of.