JUDGMENT : V. SRISHANANDA, J. Heard Smt. Geetha Devi M.P., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Pradeep Shastry, learned counsel representing Sri N. Subba Shastry, counsel for respondent No.1 (c) to (f). 2. The present appeal is filed challenging the preliminary decree filed by defendant Nos.1 to 4 passed in O.S.No.109/2001, on the file of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Ramanagara. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under: 3.1 A suit for partition and separate possession in respect of the following properties (hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’) came to be filed. (1) Dry Land bearing Survey No.10/3, measuring an extent of 01 acre 22 guntas, assessed at Rs.02.13 paise bounded as follows : East by : Lands of Chikkaboraiah, Chikkanna, Ninganna West by : Land of Mariyappa. North by: Sarkari Uni. South by: Road leading to mango Grove of shivanna. (2) Garden Land bearing Survey No.82/1 measuring an extent of 01 acre 25 guntas, assessed at Rs.6.94 paise bounded on the; East by : Land of Thrimalagiriyanna, West by : Kanva Hole. North by : Suit Sy.No.95/1, 95/2, 95/3, 95/4 South by : Mayammana Narasaiah's Garden. (3) Garden land bearing Sy. No.82/2, measuring 11 guntas assessed at Rs.1.55 paise, bounded on the; East by : Lands in suit Sy. No.82/3, West By : Land in suit Sy. No.82/1. North by : Land of siddappa, South by : Land of Devaraju. (4) Garden land bearing Sy.No.83/2 measuring 02 guntas assessed at Rs.0.27 paise, bounded on the; East by : Land of Thirumalagiriyappa, West by : Land in suit Sy. No. 82/2. North by : Land of Siddappa. South by : Land of Devaraju. (5) Garden Lands bearing Sy.No.(i) 95/1 extent of 15 guntas assessed at Rs.2.11 paise. (ii) Sy.No.95/2, extent 06 guntas, assessed at Rs.0.84 Ps. (iii) Sy.No.95/3 extent 05 guntas asessed at Rs.0.79 Ps. (iv) Sy.No.95/4, extent 31 guntas, assessed at Rs.4.34Ps. the above lands (1) to (iv) are comprised in a common boundry as follows East by : Lands of Siddappa and Thotadappa West by : Kanva Hole North by : Lands of Chikkamma, wife of Boraiah South by : Land in suit Sy.No.82/1. (iii) Sy.No.95/3 extent 05 guntas asessed at Rs.0.79 Ps. (iv) Sy.No.95/4, extent 31 guntas, assessed at Rs.4.34Ps. the above lands (1) to (iv) are comprised in a common boundry as follows East by : Lands of Siddappa and Thotadappa West by : Kanva Hole North by : Lands of Chikkamma, wife of Boraiah South by : Land in suit Sy.No.82/1. (6) Garden and wet land bearing Sy.No.119/2, measuring in extent of 04 acres, assessed at Rs.12.60 paise, bounded as follows; East by : Lands of Narayana, Chikkathimmaiah and chinnagiri West by: Lands of Chikka Thirumalaiah, Puttamma and L.Shivanna. North by : Lands of Sharadamma, wife of Shanuboga Krishnappa South by: Lands of Moodalagiri, Thrimalagiri and Smt.Mariyamma. (7) Wet land bearing survey No.120/1, measuring 01 acres 10 guntas of land assessed at Rs.3.66 paise bounded on the; East by: Suit Sy. No.143/1, West by: Lands of Narayanappa, Dassappa, Chikkamma and Shivanna. North by: Land of Mariyamma and suit Sy.No.120/5 South by : Land of Chikanna. (8) Wet land bearing Sy.No.120/5, measuring 01 acre 22 guntas assessed at Rs.3.72 paise, bounded as follows: East by : Lands of Appaji and Thrimalagirish, West by : Land of Mariyamma, North by : Land of Appaji South by :Land in suit Sy.No.143/1 (9) Dry land bearing Sy.No.143/1, measuring 15 guntas, assessed at Rs.1.45 paise, bounded on the; East by : Land in suit Sy. No. 144/1. West by: Land in suit Sy. No. 120/1. North by: Land in suit Sy.No. 120/9, South by : Land of Prem kumar and Kantharaj. (10) Dry land bearing "Sy.No.144/1, measuring 06 guntas, assessed at 0.23 paise, bounded as follows; East by : Land of Mollappa & Chikkhonnappa West by : Land in Sy.No. 143/1, North by : Land of Mariyappa South by : Land of Premakumar and Kanthraj (11) Dry Land bearing Sy.No.242, measuring 04 acres 11 guntas, assessed at Rs.24.29 paise, bounded as follows; East by: Land of Siddappa & Siddalingiah, West by: Land of Chinnagiriah and Chikka Thriumalgiriah North by: Land of Chinnagiriah and puttaswamaih. South by: Land of Chikkavenktegowda. South by: Land of Chikkavenktegowda. (12) Dwelling house bearing No.100/72 assessed at Rs.35.00 by Shanuboganahalli panchayath, measuring East to west 65 feet, north to south 85 feet, bounded as follows: East : House of Mallappa West by :Kootgal Road North by :Panchyath Road South by : House of S.L.Thimmaiah Item 1 to 11 agricultural land situated in Shanuboganahalli Gramatana, Kootgul hobli, Ramanagaram Taluk.” 4. In the plaint, it is contented that the suit properties are joint family and ancestral properties. The common prepositor was Sri Lingegowda. Said Lingegowda had two wives and from each of those two wives, he had a son and daughter respectively. 5. After death of Lingegowda there were some arrangements with regard to the settlement of the suit properties. But that did not fructify. Therefore suit for partition came to be filed. 6. In the interregnum, there were also few alienations that were made and some encumbrances created on the property. Among the sons of Lingegowda, Sri S. L. Timmayya is a doctor by profession and Sri S.L. Thimmaiah, is a lawyer by profession. 7. Sri Lingegowda left behind valuable properties which were to be distributed among his legal heirs. Daughters of Sri Lingegowda did not choose to contest the suit. On the contrary, they gave up their claims; thereby the properties which are left out by Sri Lingegowda are to be now divided between the sons of Lingegowda from each of the wives. After death of Lawyer Sri.S.L. Thimmaiah, differences further widened. Therefore, suit filed against the legal representatives of lawyer Sri S.L. Thimmaiah. 8. After thorough consideration of material evidence placed on record, learned trial Judge formed a definite opinion and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 9. Being aggrieved by the same, legal representatives of lawyer Sri S.L.Thimmaiah have filed the present appeal. 10. After addressing the arguments at length, parties were directed to find out the feasibility of amicable settlement. The matter was also heard on different occasions and when again matter was listed before this Court, one more opportunity was granted to the parties to find out the feasibility of amicable settlement. 11. Smt. Geetha Devi M.P., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Pradeep Shastry, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (c) to (f) would submit that despite best efforts, amicable settlement could not be reached in view of the fact that Dr. 11. Smt. Geetha Devi M.P., learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Pradeep Shastry, learned counsel for respondent No.1 (c) to (f) would submit that despite best efforts, amicable settlement could not be reached in view of the fact that Dr. S.L. Thimmaiah had sold an extent of 0.42 guntas of land in Sy.No.27 of Shanbhoganahalli Village, Kootagal Hobli, Ramanagar District and therefore the third party rights have crept in which is coming in the way of amicable settlement. 12. Sri Pradeep Shastry, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 (c) to (f). In order to facilitate the possible amicable/equitable partition, has presented a memo. The said memo is also signed by respondent No.1 (f) representing himself and other legal representatives as power of attorney holder. 13. Copy of the memo is furnished to Smt. Geethadevi M.P., counsel for appellants, who has endorsed no objection on the memo. 14. Contents of the memo reads as under: “The Respondents No.1(c to f) submit as follows: The plaintiff/deceased respondent Dr. S.L. Thimmaiah had sold an extent of 0.42 guntas in Sy.No.27 of Shanbhoganahalli, Kootgal Hobli, Ramanagara under two separate sale deeds Ex.D.2 and Ex.D-51. Therefore, the Respondents (c) to (f) are agreeable to adjust an extent of 0.21 guntas and undertake to receive 0.21 guntas lesser, in this share to be allotted in the Final Decree Proceedings. Wherefore, the appeal may be disposed off accordingly, in the ends of justice and equity.” 15. Taking note of the fact that there is no dispute as to the relationship and also the nature of the property, what is to be considered is whether the alienation made by Dr. S.L.Thimmaiah has hampered the rights of legal representatives of lawyer S.L.Thimmaiah. 16. As such, the present appeal needs to be disposed of by observing that whatever the alienations made by Dr. S.L. Thimmaiah, detrimental to the interest of the legal representatives of lawyer Thimmaiah is to be protected while equitable partition would take place in the final decree proceedings. 17. In that direction, memo filed by the counsel for respondents would be sufficient enough in working out an equitable partition and no further consideration of grounds of appeal. 18. It is needless to emphasize that till the ancestral property is divided by metes and bounds, every sharer could enjoy the ancestral property or joint property in every inch of the land. Therefore, alienation made by Dr. 18. It is needless to emphasize that till the ancestral property is divided by metes and bounds, every sharer could enjoy the ancestral property or joint property in every inch of the land. Therefore, alienation made by Dr. Thimmaiah is detrimental to the interest of the appellants herein. 19. But, in respect of the alienation that has taken place as to one of the items properties of the joint family is not included as suit property. As such, appellants would be entitled to seek for proportionate share in the said property also in the final decree proceedings. 20. Such an observation and direction by this Court Could quell all apprehensions that is coming in the way of the amicable settlement between the parties. Parties can very well work out their remedy before the final decree proceedings inasmuch as the preliminary decree that has been granted in the suit representing the shares of the parties is just and proper and requires no interference. 21. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Appeal stands disposed of. (ii) Preliminary decree passed by the trial Court is upheld. (iii) Parties are at liberty to work out their remedy in the final decree proceedings in accordance with law including the property bearing Sy.No.27 which was not subject matter of the suit in an equitable partition. (iv) Ordered accordingly.