JUDGMENT : M.G. UMA, J. 1. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 in OS No.139 of 1987 on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Trial Court') have filed the present appeal impugning the judgment and decree dated 25.08.1995 passed by the Trial Court, decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs holding that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for 3/16 th share each and legal representatives of plaintiff No.4 together are entitled for 3/16 th share, while plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 together are entitled for 3/16 th share in the plaint schedule properties, except in item Nos.5, 13, 19, 20, 24 and 25 of the schedule properties, while rejecting the claim of Munireddy to the share of the deceased plaintiff No.1 as her legal representative and directing the Deputy Commissioner of Bangalore Rural District to divide the properties as required under Section 54 of Code of Civil Procedure and deliver the respective shares to the plaintiffs and also to work out equity to allot Sy.Nos.6/4 and 6/5 of the plaint schedule properties being item Nos.1 and 2 to be allotted to defendant Nos.1 to 4 as far as possible, declaring that the partition entered into between defendant No.4 and deceased Pillappa dated 02.05.1980 is not binding on the plaintiffs, which was confirmed vide judgment dated 03.04.2009 passed in RA No.47 of 1995 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District (hereinafter referred as to 'the First Appellate Court') by dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. 2. During the pendency of appeal, appellant Nos.1 and 2 have filed IAs.1 and 2 of 2024 to transpose themselves as respondent Nos.11 and 12. The said applications came to be allowed vide order dated 09.01.2025. Thus, defendant No.4 is the only appellant before this Court. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their rank and status before the Trial Court. 4. The said applications came to be allowed vide order dated 09.01.2025. Thus, defendant No.4 is the only appellant before this Court. 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 filed the suit OS No.139 of 1987 before the Trial Court against defendant Nos.1 to 5 to declare that the partition deed dated 02.05.1980 entered into between defendant No.4 and husband of defendant No.1 is not binding on plaintiff Nos.1 to 9, for partition and separate possession of all the schedule properties by metes and bounds and to allot the shares to the plaintiffs in accordance with law. 5. It is stated by the plaintiffs that one Pillappa was the propositus of the family of plaintiffs and defendants. The said Pillappa had two wives. Plaintiff No.1 is the first wife of Pillappa and plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are their children. Plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 are the children of Muddamma, the other daughter of Pillappa and plaintiff No.1. The said Muddamma died about 7 or 8 years earlier to filing of the suit, leaving behind plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 as her legal representatives. It is stated that defendant No.1 is the second wife of Pillappa, and they have begotten defendant Nos.2 to 4 as their children. It is stated that Pillappa married defendant No.1 during the subsistence of marriage with plaintiff No.1 and hence, it is stated that the said marriage of Pillappa with defendant No.1 is not valid. 6. It is stated that the propositus Pillappa had acquired a residential house at Bengaluru and it was his self-acquired property. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 are residing in the said house. It is stated that Pillappa was residing with plaintiff No.1 at Haralur Nagenahalli till about a year earlier to his death on 01.07.1980. He died in Bengaluru, when he was taking treatment at Lady Curzon and Bowring Hospital for his heart and other ailments. He came to Bengaluru at the beginning of 1980. At the time of his death he was aged 85 years and was admitted to the hospital for about 3 to 4 months as inpatient. 7. He died in Bengaluru, when he was taking treatment at Lady Curzon and Bowring Hospital for his heart and other ailments. He came to Bengaluru at the beginning of 1980. At the time of his death he was aged 85 years and was admitted to the hospital for about 3 to 4 months as inpatient. 7. It is stated that the properties mentioned in the schedule are all the self-acquired properties of Pillappa and he was cultivating the agricultural lands and was doing silk business. It is stated that when Pillappa was admitted to the hospital as inpatient, defendant Nos.1 to 4 have concocted a document dated 02.05.1980 styled as partition deed, behind the back of the plaintiffs. It is stated that Pillappa had no intention to enter into such a deed or partition without informing the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the schedule properties even during the lifetime of Pillappa. After the death of Pillappa, the plaintiffs requested the defendants to effect partition. The defendants proclaimed that a partition deed dated 02.05.1980 was entered into and almost all the schedule properties were allotted to the share of defendant No.4. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking declaration that the partition deed dated 02.05.1980 is not binding on the plaintiffs and for effecting partition by metes and bounds and to allot their share in the schedule properties. 8. During the pendency of suit before the Trial Court, plaintiff No.1 died and one Munireddy, son of Narayanappa, who is the son of plaintiff No.2 was impleaded as the legal representative of deceased plaintiff No.1. It is stated that plaintiff No.1 during her lifetime had executed a Will dated 25.09.1989 bequeathing her right in favour of said Munireddy. Therefore, after the death of plaintiff No.1, it is Munireddy who is entitled for her share by virtue of the Will referred to above. 9. The schedule attached to the plaint describes 25 different items of properties including the house, agricultural lands with the specific boundaries mentioned therein (referred to 'scheduled properties'). 10. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have appeared before the Trial Court and filed their written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiffs and contended that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. It is stated that the plaintiffs have no right over the schedule properties and there was no cause of action for the suit. 10. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have appeared before the Trial Court and filed their written statement denying the contentions taken by the plaintiffs and contended that the suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable. It is stated that the plaintiffs have no right over the schedule properties and there was no cause of action for the suit. It is stated that defendant No.1 was residing at Haralur Nagenahalli along with her son defendant No.4, while defendant Nos.2 and 3 are residing at Bengaluru. Deliberately, the plaintiffs showed their wrong address with an intention to get a decree behind the back of the defendants. 11. The defendants admitted the relationship between the parties as mentioned in paragraph No.2 of the plaint. They also admitted the genealogical tree referred to in paragraph No.3. The defendants admitted that Pillappa married defendant No.1, as he had no male issues through plaintiff No.1, but denied the contention of the plaintiffs that the said marriage was not within the knowledge of the plaintiffs. It is stated that legally Pillappa married defendant No.1 and they have begotten defendant Nos.2 to 4 as their legal representatives. It is stated that Pillappa married defendant No.1 at the instance of plaintiff No.1 and other elders in the family. 12. It is stated that Pillappa after marrying defendant No.1 was residing with her at Haralur Nagenahalli and he was not residing at Bengaluru. It is stated that house premises at Sl.No.11 in the schedule was not the self-acquired property of Pillappa, but it was acquired through the father of defendant No.1. Defendant No.2 was residing in the said house as permitted by defendant No.1. It is stated that Pillappa was having heart ailment, but otherwise he was hale and healthy. He was taking treatment at Lady Curzon and Bowring Hospital, Bengaluru. It was defendant No.4 who was maintaining plaintiff No.1 and was residing at Malur. Defendant No.1 was always accompanying Pillappa even during his treatment at Bengaluru. 13. Defendant Nos.1 to 4 have denied the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the self- acquired properties of Pillappa. It is contented that item Nos.24 and 25 of the schedule are the absolute properties of late Hanumanthappa, the father of defendant No.1. Therefore, these properties are not the properties owned by Pillappa and plaintiffs have no right over the same. It is contented that item Nos.24 and 25 of the schedule are the absolute properties of late Hanumanthappa, the father of defendant No.1. Therefore, these properties are not the properties owned by Pillappa and plaintiffs have no right over the same. Defendant No.2 who married the brother of defendant No.1 was residing in a house situated at Ulsoor and plaintiffs have no right over the same. 14. The contention of the plaintiffs that Pillappa was admitted to the hospital as an inpatient and the partition deed was concocted by the defendants during the said period are all denied. It is stated that Pillappa out of his own will entered into a deed of partition dated 02.05.1980 with defendant No.4. The said document is binding on the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any share. 15. Without prejudice to the contention taken by the defendants, it is stated that even if the Court forms an opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession, their claim is limited only to the share that had fallen to the share of deceased Pillappa as per the partition deed, but not in any other properties. Therefore, defendant Nos.1 to 4 prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. 16. Defendant No.5 filed the written statement contending that he had purchased land bearing Sy.Nos.6/4 and 6/5, totally measuring 39 guntas situated at Haralu Nagenahalli Village under the registered sale dated 25.01.1991 for a valuable consideration, from defendant No.4, who was the absolute owner in possession of the same. The revenue records were mutated in his name and on the basis of registered sale deed, he is in possession of the same. Therefore, defendant No.5 contends that even if the suit is to be decreed, there shall be an equitable partition to allot item Nos.1 and 2 of the plaint schedule to the share of defendant No.5, since he is a bonafide purchaser for value. 17. On the basis of these pleadings, the following issues and additional issues came to be framed by the Trial Court: "1. Whether plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of the deceased Pillappa? 2. Whether the defendants prove that a partition took place on 02.05.1980 as contended by them? 3. 17. On the basis of these pleadings, the following issues and additional issues came to be framed by the Trial Court: "1. Whether plaintiffs prove that the suit schedule properties are self acquired properties of the deceased Pillappa? 2. Whether the defendants prove that a partition took place on 02.05.1980 as contended by them? 3. Whether the defendants prove that the suit items 24, 25 are the properties of late Hanumanthappa, the father of first defendant as contended? 4. Whether the plaintiff proves cause of auction for the suit? 5. Whether the defendants prove that the suit is not maintainable as contended? 6. Whether the plaintiff are entitled for the reliefs sought for? 7. What Order or Decree? Addl. Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff No.1 proves the execution of the Will in his favour, said deed, Muniyamma as contended? 2. Whether the defendant No.5 proves that the plaintiffs have no right to question the sale in his favour by the 4 th defendant? 3. Whether in case of decree, there should be equitable partition allowing Sy.No.6/4 and 6/5 measuring in all 39 guntas to the share of defendant No.4 as alleged by the defendant No.5?" 18. Plaintiffs examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.P1 to 65 in support of their contentions. Defendants examined DW1 and got marked Exs.D1 to 78. The Trial Court after taking into consideration all these materials on record, answered issue Nos.1 and 4 in the affirmative, issue Nos.2, 3 and 5 in the negative, additional issue No.1 in the negative against legal representative of plaintiff No.1, additional issue Nos.2 and 3 in the negative against defendant No.5, while answering issue No.6 in the affirmative and accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs holding that plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 are entitled for 3/16 th share each, the legal representatives of Plaintiff No.4 are entitled for 3/16 th share together. Plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 together are entitled for 3/16 th share, except in item Nos.5, 13, 19, 20, 24 and 25 of the plaint schedule properties. The claim made by Munireddy in the share of deceased plaintiff No.1 was rejected. Accordingly, the decree came to be passed directing the Deputy Commissioner to effect partition in respect of item No.23 by metes and bounds and also ordered that Sy.Nos.6/4 and 6/5 of the plaint schedule being item Nos.1 and 2 be allotted to defendants Nos.1 to 4. The claim made by Munireddy in the share of deceased plaintiff No.1 was rejected. Accordingly, the decree came to be passed directing the Deputy Commissioner to effect partition in respect of item No.23 by metes and bounds and also ordered that Sy.Nos.6/4 and 6/5 of the plaint schedule being item Nos.1 and 2 be allotted to defendants Nos.1 to 4. The claim of the plaintiffs in respect of Item Nos.5, 13, 19, 20, 24 and 25 was rejected. It was declared that the partition deed entered into between deceased Pillappa and defendant No.4 dated 02.05.1980 was not binding on the plaintiffs. 19. Being aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1 to 4 have preferred RA No.47 of 1995. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the materials on record, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court. 20. Heard Sri G Papi Reddy, learned senior advocate for Sri Varun Papi Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri P V Chandra Shekar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1(a) to (c), Sri R Chandranna, learned counsel for respondent No.2(a), (b)(i to iii), (c) to (e), respondent No.3, 4 (a to d), respondent Nos.5 to 9 and Sri R Balaji, learned counsel for respondent Nos.11 and 12. Perused the materials including the Trial Court records. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the relationship between the parties is admitted. Defendant No.4 is the son of Pillappa and he was the co-parcener. During the lifetime of Pillappa, he entered into a registered partition deed only with his son defendant No.4. The said registered partition deed is saved in view of the proviso to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. Ex.D8 is the original partition deed and Ex.P2 is the copy of same. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have committed an error in declaring that the same is not binding on the plaintiffs. As per Ex.D8 the partition deed dated 02.05.1980, there are more than 38 items, which include the schedule properties. The Trial Court held that Pillappa was not well when Ex.D8 came into existence and he was not in a position to enter such deed of partition. As per Ex.D8 the partition deed dated 02.05.1980, there are more than 38 items, which include the schedule properties. The Trial Court held that Pillappa was not well when Ex.D8 came into existence and he was not in a position to enter such deed of partition. But the plaintiffs have never pleaded that Pillappa was unable to enter into partition deed, but it is the contention raised by the plaintiffs that it is a product of fraud and misrepresentation. The plaintiffs have not lead any evidence to prove such contention of fraud and misrepresentation. 22. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that according to the plaintiffs all the schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Pillappa. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have accepted the said contention, ignoring the clinching revenue documents produced as per Exs.P46 to 56. Drawing the attention of the Court to various revenue documents, including the index of lands, learned counsel for the appellants contended that there is specific reference to Pillappa and nature of acquisition of the properties by way of partition. Therefore, it is contended by the appellant that the reference to the partition was in fact to Ex.D77 dated 10.11.1966. As per Ex.D77, there was a partition between Pillappa and others i.e., Pillappa, Mottappa, Bacchamma, Papanna and Bachhappa. It is stated that Bacchamma and others referred to above are Pillappa's uncle's wife and children. As per this partition deed, item Nos.2, 6 to 9, 11, 14 to 18 and 22 were fallen to the share of Pillappa. It is contended by the learned counsel that Ex.D77 was never disputed and it is supported by revenue entries at an undisputed point of time. All the properties referred to above which are subject matter of Ex.D77 are the subject matters of the partition deed Ex.D8. Therefore, it is contended that all these properties are the ancestral properties of Pillappa and not his self acquired properties. 23. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiffs filed the suit specifically contending that the schedule properties are the self acquired properties of late Pillappa, but they have not produced any materials in support of the such contention. On the other hand, Ex.D77 is the copy of registered partition deed that was entered into at an undisputed point of time i.e., dated 10.11.1966. On the other hand, Ex.D77 is the copy of registered partition deed that was entered into at an undisputed point of time i.e., dated 10.11.1966. Ex.D77 refers to 12 items of properties mentioned in the schedule as item Nos.2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 22. Even though, the original partition deed is not produced, the plaintiffs have not raised any objection while marking the copy of same as Ex.D77. He also contended that Exs.P46 to 56 are the revenue records, where there is reference to acquisition of these properties by Pillappa under the partition. Recitals in Ex.D77 discloses that Pillappa and his cousins - Mottappa, Bachamma, Papanna and Bachappa have entered into the partition on 10.11.1966, in respect of the very same schedule properties. All the revenue records produced by the plaintiffs as Exs.P46 to P56 refer to this partition as..........Even though the plaintiffs contended that the schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Pillappa, no scrap of paper is produced to substantiate the same. The entries in Exs.P46 to 56 were never disputed by the plaintiffs. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs have not proved issue No.1. On the other hand, the defendants by producing Ex.D77, which is never disputed by the plaintiffs proved that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Pillappa acquired by him under the registered partition Ex.D77. 24. Learned counsel also contented that admittedly defendant No.4 is the only son of Pillappa and during his life time, the partition deed dated 02.05.1980 was entered into, wherein there was a partition as per Exs.P2/D8. It is a registered document. The plaintiffs have not taken any specific defence to the fact that the partition deed Exs.P2/D8 is either forged or obtained through misrepresentation or fraud. But strangely, the Trial Court itself made out a ground on behalf of the plaintiffs to form an opinion that there was misrepresentation or fraud to obtain the signature of Pillappa while he was admitted to the hospital as inpatient just prior to his death. When the parties have not made out any such ground, the Trial Court was not justified in forming such opinion. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant - defendant No.4 contends that Pillappa was having two wives, i.e., plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1. Plaintiff No.1 was having plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and mother of plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 as her daughters. When the parties have not made out any such ground, the Trial Court was not justified in forming such opinion. 25. Learned counsel for the appellant - defendant No.4 contends that Pillappa was having two wives, i.e., plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1. Plaintiff No.1 was having plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and mother of plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 as her daughters. Similarly, defendant No.1 was having two daughters i.e., defendant Nos.2 and 3 and only son defendant No.4. Even according to plaint averments, Pillappa was hale and healthy till his last day and he was doing silk business. It is elicited during cross-examination that Pillappa was suffering from fever for sometime. The same cannot be a ground to form any opinion that Exs.P2/D8 was concocted by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery etc, when there is no pleading nor proof in that regard. 26. The plaintiffs examined PW1, the son of plaintiff No.2 who produced Ex.P2. PWs.2 and 3 only speak about the relationship between the parties, which is never disputed. None of the plaintiffs entered into the witness box to speak about their contentions. Even though, PW1 claims right under the Will said to have been executed by plaintiff No.1 in respect of the undivided share of plaintiff No.1, no such document is produced. Therefore, evidence of PW1 will not help the plaintiffs in proving their contentions. 27. Learned counsel also submitted that PW1 has not denied Ex.D77. During cross-examination, he states that there might be such a partition that was effected during 1966 between Pillappa and his brother. 28. Learned counsel contends that Exs.P2/D8 is executed in the year 1980. The suit came to be filed in the year 1987. Therefore, the suit is clearly barred by limitation. On that ground also, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have not taken any of these facts and materials on record by ignoring Ex.D77 and proceeded to hold that properties are the self acquired properties of Pillappa. This finding is against the materials that are placed on record. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. 29. This finding is against the materials that are placed on record. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are liable to be set aside. 29. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents-plaintiffs opposing the appeal submitted that when the relationship between the parties are admitted and the plaintiffs are class-I legal representatives of Pillappa, they could not have been excluded while effecting partition of the schedule properties under Exs.P2/D8. The evidence on record discloses that Pillappa, who was aged 85 years during his death was suffering from ill-health and admitted to the hospital. Defendant No.4 might have taken advantage of such situation to concoct the documents. Defendant No.4 who was examined as DW1 has not examined any other witnesses to prove execution of Ex.D77 or Exs.P2/D8. Simply because there is reference to........in revenue records, the same cannot be the basis to hold that Ex.D77 is proved. 30. Learned counsel submitted that original partition deed of Ex.P2 is not produced. When the plaintiffs specifically denied execution of such documents by Pillappa, it is the bounden duty of defendants to prove execution of the same in accordance with law. DW1 was hardly aged 12 years when the document was executed. His evidence is inconsistent with Exs.P2/D8. None of the witnesses to Exs.P2 or Ex.D77 are examined to prove due execution of the same. Ex.P2 was executed during May, when Pillappa was aged 85 years and was suffering from ill-health and immediately thereafter, during August he died. This probablises the contentions taken by the plaintiffs that it was a concocted document. The concurrent findings recorded by the Courts do not call for any interference. 31. Learned counsel also submits that even though Ex.P2 is of the year 1980, the plaintiffs were demanding for partition and separate possession of their share, but the same was postponed by defendant No.4. Under Article 10 of Limitation Act, 1963, the plaintiffs are entitled to file the suit for partition and the same was not barred by limitation. Accordingly, no issues were raised before the Trial Court. 32. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.11 and 12 contended that originally they were defendant Nos.2 and 3. Initially they were supporting defendant No.4, but now they have changed their stand to support the plaintiffs and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 33. Accordingly, no issues were raised before the Trial Court. 32. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.11 and 12 contended that originally they were defendant Nos.2 and 3. Initially they were supporting defendant No.4, but now they have changed their stand to support the plaintiffs and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 33. As per order dated 12.07.2011, the following substantial question of law is framed: "Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that the suit properties except suit items 6, 19, 20, 13, 24 and 25 are the self acquired properties of late Pillappa by ignoring Ex.D77 - certified copy of registered partition deed effected between Pillappa and his brothers and holding suit is not barred by prescribed period of limitation?" 34. As per order dated 17.12.2025, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, the substantial question of law was reframed as under: "Whether Ex.D77 - the registered partition deed dated 10.11.1966 is liable to be ignored, when the same is supported by various revenue records relied on by the plaintiffs marked as per Exs.P46 to P56 and when there is reference to this document, even in Ex.P2/D8?" 35. The plaintiffs filed the suit specifically contending that the schedule properties are the self acquired properties of late Pillappa, but they have not produced any materials in support of such contention. On the other hand, Ex.D77 is the copy of registered partition deed that was entered into at an undisputed point of time i.e. on 10.11.1966 between Pillappa and others. Ex.D77 refers to 12 items of properties mentioned in the schedule as item Nos.2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 22. Even though, the original partition deed is not produced, the plaintiffs have not raised any objection while marking the copy of same as Ex.D77. It is pertinent to note that Exs.P46 to 56 are the revenue records relied on by the plaintiffs, where there is reference to acquisition of these properties by Pillappa under a partition by referring as.......Recitals in Ex.D77 discloses that Pillappa and his cousins - Mottappa, Bachamma, Papanna and Bachappa have entered into the partition on 10.11.1966, in respect of the very same schedule properties. The entries in Exs.P46 to 56 were never disputed by the plaintiffs. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs have not proved issue No.1. The entries in Exs.P46 to 56 were never disputed by the plaintiffs. Under such circumstances, the plaintiffs have not proved issue No.1. On the other hand, the defendants by producing Ex.D77, which is never disputed by the plaintiffs to prove that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Pillappa acquired by him under the registered partition deed - Ex.D77. 36. Admittedly, defendant No.4 is the only son of Pillappa. It is contended by the defendants that during his life time the partition deed dated 02.05.1980 was entered into between Pillappa and his son - defendant No.4, copies of which are marked as Exs.P2/D8. It is a registered document. The plaintiffs have not taken any specific defence to deny the genuineness of the partition deed Exs.P2/D8 nor they have contended that the same was either forged or obtained through misrepresentation or fraud. The Trial Court proceeded to form an opinion that there was misrepresentation or fraud to obtain the signature of Pillappa while he was admitted to the hospital as inpatient, just prior to his death. When the parties have not made out any such ground, the Trial Court was not justified in forming such opinion. It is pertinent to note that the only ground urged by the plaintiffs to deny Exs.P2/D8 is that, it was concocted behind the back of the plaintiffs. When the document came into existence at an undisputed point of time and the same is a registered document, I do not find any reason to suspect its genuineness. 37. Admittedly, Pillappa had two wives i.e., plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1. Plaintiff No.1 was having plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 and mother of plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 as her daughters. Similarly, defendant No.1 was having two daughters i.e., defendant Nos.2 and 3 and only son defendant No.4. Even according to plaint averments, Pillappa was hale and healthy till his last day and he was doing silk business. It is stated during cross-examination that Pillappa was suffering from fever for some time. The same cannot be a ground to form any opinion that Exs.P2/D8 was concocted by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery etc, when there is no pleading or proof in that regard. 38. The plaintiffs have examined PW1, the son of plaintiff No.2 who produced Ex.P2. PWs.2 and 3 only speak about the relationship between the parties which is never disputed. The same cannot be a ground to form any opinion that Exs.P2/D8 was concocted by misrepresentation, fraud, forgery etc, when there is no pleading or proof in that regard. 38. The plaintiffs have examined PW1, the son of plaintiff No.2 who produced Ex.P2. PWs.2 and 3 only speak about the relationship between the parties which is never disputed. None of the plaintiffs entered the witness box to speak about their contentions. Even though, PW1 claims right under the Will said to have been executed by plaintiff No.1, in respect of her undivided share, no such document is produced. Therefore, evidence of PW1 will not help the plaintiffs in proving their contentions. 39. It is pertinent to note that PW1 never denied Ex.D77. During cross-examination, he states that there might be such a partition that was effected during 1966 between Pillappa and his brother, which supports the contention of defendant No.4. 40. When the plaintiffs have approached the Trial Court seeking declaration that they are not bound by the registered partition deed - Ex.P2 and for partition and separate possession of their share, they are bound to prove their contention that the schedule properties are the self acquired properties of deceased Pillappa and that they are entitled for the relief as claimed. Except taking the contention that the schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Pillappa, the plaintiffs have not made any effort to prove issue No.1. If the schedule properties are the self acquired properties of Pillappa, definitely there should have been some documents to prove the acquisition of same by Pillappa during his life time. No such materials are produced before the Court. On the other hand, the defendant by producing Ex.D77, which is a registered partition deed entered into between Pillappa and others, probabalised their contention that the schedule properties were acquired by Pillappa under the partition effected in the family wayback on 10.11.1966. This document Ex.D77 gets support from the documents that are produced by the plaintiffs i.e., the revenue records marked as Ex.P46 to 56. These series of revenue records referred to the schedule property as acquired under the partition cannot be ignored. 41. The defendants by producing Ex.D8 - the copy of registered partition deed which is challenged by the plaintiffs, adduced evidence by examining defendant No.4 as DW1. These series of revenue records referred to the schedule property as acquired under the partition cannot be ignored. 41. The defendants by producing Ex.D8 - the copy of registered partition deed which is challenged by the plaintiffs, adduced evidence by examining defendant No.4 as DW1. Nothing has been elicited from him during cross examination to disbelieve Ex.D8 which is dated 02.05.1980. 42. As per proviso to Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, as amended in the year 2005, any disposition or alienation including any partition or testamentary disposition of property which had taken place before the 20.12.2004 shall not be invalidated in view of the amendment to Section 6. Since Ex.P2/D8 is dated 02.05.1980 and since it is a registered partition deed entered into between Pillappa and defendant No.4, the same is saved and binds the plaintiffs. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the plaintiffs cannot ignore Ex.P2/D8 to seek partition in all the schedule properties. However, admittedly Pillappa had retained few items of properties under this registered partition deed which are available for partition between the legal representatives of deceased Pillappa. 43. Learned counsel for the appellant has filed the memo dated 12.12.2025, specifying the share in the schedule properties retained by Pillappa under the registered partition deed dated 02.05.1980. The details of the properties mentioned in the memo as retained by Pillappa as per Ex.P2/D8 is not denied by the learned counsel for the respondents, rather the same is admitted. The details of such properties retained by Pillappa as stated in the memo are as under: "The properties specified hereunder were fallen to the share of Late Pillappa showing as A-Schedule properties under Registered Partition Deed date 02/05/1980 Exabit - D8: 1. Dry land measuring 3 acres 8 gunts in Sy.No.210/2 and Dry land measuring 5 acres 30 gunts in Sy. No.211/2 of Malluru village, Vijaypurahobli, Devanahalli Taluk and commonly bounded on: East by: Kaludari (footpath) leading to Hraluru Nagenahalli West by: Sy.No.206 North by: Lands of Bijjappa and Maku Bachappa South : Lands of Bajantri Chikkamuniyappa, Ramakrishna and Munishamy. 2. Dry land measuring 2 acres 8 gunts in Sy.No.206 of Maraluruvillage, Vijayapura hobli, Devanahalli Taluk and bounded on: East by: Sy. No. 210/2 and Sy. No.211/2 West by: Nalluru Gunnappaiah's land North by: Sa. Venkatarayappa and Gow Kempaia South by: Nalluru ChikkaByrappa's land. 3. 2. Dry land measuring 2 acres 8 gunts in Sy.No.206 of Maraluruvillage, Vijayapura hobli, Devanahalli Taluk and bounded on: East by: Sy. No. 210/2 and Sy. No.211/2 West by: Nalluru Gunnappaiah's land North by: Sa. Venkatarayappa and Gow Kempaia South by: Nalluru ChikkaByrappa's land. 3. Dry and wet land measuring 2 acres 8 gunts in Sy.No.97/2 of Maraluru village, Vijayapura hobli, Devanahalli Taluk and bounded on: East by : Ragimakalahalli border West by: Doddavenkataramappa, Munishwami and Seerappaiah's lands North by: Late Narayanappa, Da Venkatarayappa South by: G. Pillapa and others lands. 4. Tiled house and varanda bearing House list No.11 situated at HaraluruNagenahalli, VijayapuraHobli, Devanahalli Taluk coming within limits of kommasnadra Panchyath and bounded on: East by: Land of B-schedule owner West by: B-Schedule dara North by: House of Motappa South by: Land of B- Schedule dara 5. Ashwathakatten -2 situated at Haraluru, Nagenahalli, Vijayapura hobli, Devanahalli Taluk and bounded on: 44. When Pillappa had retained these properties to his share, the same are available for partition amongst his legal representatives after his demise. Plaintiffs and defendants, except defendant No.1, being the class-I legal representatives of Pillappa are entitled for equal share in the same. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 4, mother of plaintiffs Nos.5 to 9, defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are entitled for equal share in the properties left behind by Pillappa as described above. Hence, each of them are entitled for 1/8 th share in the properties referred to above. 45. Respondent Nos.11 and 12 who were defendant Nos.2 and 3 before the Trial Court filed common written statement along with defendant Nos.1 and 4 seeking to dismiss the suit. Now they cannot change their stand contrary to the stand taken in written statement and to seek decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs. 46. I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Trial Court proceeded to consider the schedule properties as the self acquired properties of Pillappa solely on the ground that the defendants have not specifically pleaded that the same are the ancestral properties of Pillappa. The defendants denied the contention of the plaintiffs that the properties are self acquired properties of Pillappa and accordingly issue.No.1 was framed placing burden on plaintiffs to prove their contentions. The defendants denied the contention of the plaintiffs that the properties are self acquired properties of Pillappa and accordingly issue.No.1 was framed placing burden on plaintiffs to prove their contentions. Even in the absence of such specific contention raised by the defendants, when the clinching documents are produced i.e., Exs.D77, Ex.P46 to 56, the Trial Court was not justified in forming such an opinion. I do not find any justification for the Trial Court to ignore all these clinching materials that were available on record. 47. Even though Ex.D8 and Ex.D77 are the certified copes of the registered partition deeds and the original partition deeds were not produced by defendant No.4, the same cannot be the ground to ignore both these documents since plaintiffs themselves are seeking a declaration with respect to Ex.P2 which is a similar copy of Ex.D8. Regarding Ex.D77, the plaintiffs have never raised any objection for marking the certified copy of Ex.D77. Moreover, this document is acted upon as evidenced by the revenue records produced by the plaintiffs themselves as Ex.P46 to 56. No strong grounds are made out to avoid these documents and to decree the suit of the plaintiffs as prayed for. 48. The First Appellate Court even though held that a Hindu family is presumed to be joint family, and it is for the party to the proceedings requiring to prove before the Court to pass a decree that it is not a joint family through the same proceeded to hold that there is no presumption that the property held by a member even as kartha is the joint family property. It has ignored the voluminous oral and documentary evidence placed before it including Exs.D77, P46 to 56 which came into existence at an undisputed point of time which prove the defence taken by the defendants that the schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Pillappa. Thus, both the Courts have committed an error in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs as prayed for. 49. In view of the above, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court are liable to be set aside to the extent it relates to the share that was allotted under Ex.P2/D8 in favour of defendant No.4 by modifying the same. 49. In view of the above, the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court are liable to be set aside to the extent it relates to the share that was allotted under Ex.P2/D8 in favour of defendant No.4 by modifying the same. Accordingly, I answer the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant and against the respondents and proceed to pass the following: ORDER: (i) Appeal is allowed in part. (ii) The judgment and decree dated 25.08.1995 passed in OS No.139 of 1987 on the file of the learned I Additional Civil Judge, Bengaluru and the judgment and decree dated 03.04.2009 passed in RA No.47 of 1995 on the file of the learned I Additional District Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, are hereby modified as under: (a) It is declared that plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and defendant Nos.2, 3 and 4 are entitled for 1/8 th share each, while plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 together are entitled for 1/8 th share in 5 items of the properties that are left behind by Pillappa, which are referred to in paragraph 43 of the judgment. (b) The share of deceased plaintiff No.1 shall devolve on her children equally. Thus, plaintiff Nos.2 to 4 are entitled for 1/4 th share each and plaintiff Nos.5 to 9 are entitled for 1/4 th share together in the share of deceased plaintiff No.1. (iii) The claim of the plaintiffs for declaration that the partition deed dated 02.05.1980 entered into between defendant No.4 and Pillappa is not binding on them, is rejected. (iv) Parties are directed to bear their own costs. Registry is directed to draw the preliminary decree accordingly and to send back the Trial Court records along with copy of this judgment and the preliminary decree.