JUDGMENT : R.NATARAJ, J. The defendants No.2, 3, 4 and 5 in O.S. No.27/2020 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Ron, have filed this Regular First Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2022 passed therein, by which the suit was decreed and it was held that the plaintiff was entitled to half share in A1 to A6 and B suit schedule properties and 1/4 th share in items A7 and A8. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy understanding, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court. 3. The suit in O.S. No.27/2020 was filed for partition and separate possession in respect of eight items of agricultural lands and a residential property. The plaintiff claimed that defendant No.1 was his sister-in-law, while defendants No.2 to 5 were his nephews and niece. Since the suit schedule No.7 property stood in the name of defendants No.6 to 10, they were also arrayed as formal parties in the suit. 4. The plaintiff claimed that his father had three sons namely Ramanagouda, Shankaragouda and the plaintiff. Amongst them, Ramanagouda was given in adoption and the plaintiff and the husband of defendant No.1 constituted the joint family and were enjoying the suit schedule properties, though they were cultivating separately. Plaintiff claimed that the land bearing Sy.No.61/1 of Budihal Village was cultivated by his father as a tenant and later, after his death, it was granted to the husband of defendant No.1 in the year 1975. It was therefore, contended that all the properties were either joint family properties or ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 5. Plaintiff claimed that the defendants refused to partition the suit properties and therefore, he was advised to file a suit for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit properties. 5. Defendants No.1 to 5 contested the suit and filed their common written statement inter alia contending that the suit filed by the plaintiff was frivolous and mischievous and that the genealogy furnished by the plaintiff was not correct. However, they admitted the relationship of the plaintiff with them and admitted that the eldest brother of the plaintiff was given in adoption. However, they admitted the relationship of the plaintiff with them and admitted that the eldest brother of the plaintiff was given in adoption. They contended that suit items No.2 to 8 were the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants No.2 to 5 but claimed that they had partitioned them in the year 1976 and accordingly, plaintiff and defendants were enjoying their respective shares. In so far as item No.1 of suit ‘A’ property was concerned, it was claimed that it was a separate independent property of the father of defendants No.2 to 5 as it was granted to him by the Tribunal. They contended that by taking advantage of the entries in the RTC extracts for the year 1974-75 that stood in the name of the father of the plaintiff, he had filed the suit including the item No.1 of suit ‘A’ property. They contended that, as per the order of grant by the Land Tribunal, the father of defendants No.2 to 5 had paid land revenue to the State Government and that it was the absolute property of their father over which the plaintiff had no right, title or intrest. 6. Defendants No.6 to 10 were placed ex parte. 7. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of him and the defendants No.1 to 5? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of him, and the defendants? 3. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendants had refused to give the legitimate share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties? 4. Whether the defendant No.1 to 5 prove that, the Genealogy mentioned in the plaint is not correct? 5. Whether the defendant NO.1 to 5 prove that, there was already partition in connection with the suit schedule A(2) to (8) properties, by virtue of Apsath Vatni? 6. Whether the defendant No.1 to 5 prove that, the suit schedule A(1) property is the own property of them, and they are in possession of the said property? 7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? 9. What order or decree? The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he marked Exs.P.1 to P.19. Plaintiff examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3. 7. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? 9. What order or decree? The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and he marked Exs.P.1 to P.19. Plaintiff examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3. Defendant No.2 was examined as D.W.1 and he marked Exs.D.1 to D.8. 8. The Trial Court noticed the evidence of D.W.1 wherein he admitted that except the land in Sy.No.61/1, all other suit properties were cultivated jointly by the plaintiffs and the defendants. In so far as the Sy.No.61/1 was concerned, it noticed that it was cultivated earlier by the propositus Sri. Yallappagouda Patil and after his death, the father of D.W.1 was cultivating it. The Trial Court, therefore, held that defendants had admitted that the land bearing Sy.No.61/1 was earlier cultivated by the propositus Mr.Yallappagouda Patil and that such cultivation continued after his death by the father of defendants No.2 to 6. Therefore, it held that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in A1 to A6 properties and B Schedule property which, apparently, was also the property held jointly by the family. In so far as suit item A7 and A8 properties were concerned, it referred to the deposition of D.W.1 wherein he admitted that in Sy.No.174/2 (item No.A7 property), he and the plaintiff were entitled to half share and the remaining half was to go to defendants No.6 and 7. Likewise, in respect of Sy.No.82/1, he admitted that the plaintiff and himself were entitled to half share while the remaining half were to go to defendants No.8 to 10. Therefore, the Trial Court decreed the suit declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in A1 to A6 and B suit schedule properties and 1/4 th share in A7 and A8 suit schedule properties. 9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendants No.2 to 5 have filed this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for defendants submitted that the suit item No.1 belonged to the father of defendants No.2 to 5 as it was he who had filed an application for re-grant of the land. She contends that the suit item No.1 was “Totaganti Chakra Inama land” and that the same was cultivated by the father of defendants No.2 to 5 as a tenant and in view of such cultivation, the land was granted to him. She contends that the suit item No.1 was “Totaganti Chakra Inama land” and that the same was cultivated by the father of defendants No.2 to 5 as a tenant and in view of such cultivation, the land was granted to him. She also contends that the father of defendants No.2 to 5 had paid premium for grant of land and that he was cultivating the land exclusively and the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in this item No.1 property. She also contends that there was a prior partition of item Nos.2 to 6 in the year 1976 and accordingly, the plaintiff and defendants were enjoying their respective properties. Therefore, she contends that the suit item No.1 which was granted to the father of the defendants in the year 1975, was his independent property which was not available for partition. Thus, she contends that the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is erroneous as it has ignored the consequences of grant of land under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that defendants No.2 to 5 have categorically admitted that the suit items No.A2 to A6 were ancestral joint family properties. He contends that even item Nos.7 and 8 are also properties of plaintiffs and defendants. He contends that since defendants No.2 to 5 have claimed that suit items A2 to A6 were partitioned in the year 1976, there is not much dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants that the properties belonged to the joint family comprising. In so far as item No.1 is concerned, he contends that the same was undisputedly granted to the father of defendants No.2 to 5 as he was the eldest male member who was looking the affairs of the family. He contends that D.W.1, who was examined before the Court, had categorically admitted that suit item No.1 was cultivated by Yallappa Gouda Patil, the grandfather of defendants No.2 to 5 and after his death, the father of defendants No.2 to 5 was cultivating it and that the application for grant of land was filed by the father of defendants No.2 to 5. Therefore, he contends that the grant of land enured to the benefit of the family and, for all practical purposes, was a part of the joint family property which was available for partition between the plaintiff and defendants No.2 to 5. He contended that no properties were separately cultivated by the plaintiff and the father of defendants No.2 to 5 and there was no partition by metes and bounds and hence, the plaintiff was entitled to an equal share in the suit properties. He further contends that though defendants No.2 to 5 contended that there was prior partition in the year 1976, no document of whatsoever nature was produced before the Trial Court to establish the said fact. Further, he contends that defendants No.2 to 5 did not place on record the order of grant made by the Land Tribunal, the Form No.7 filed by them seeking grant of occupancy rights and therefore, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the defendants. He contends that if only these documents were placed before the Court, it would have certainly decided the dispute between the parties. Thus, he contends that the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court is just and property in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not warrant any interference. 12. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for defendants No.2 to 5. We have also perused the records of the Trial Court as well as the judgment and decree passed by it. 13. In view of the above, the following points arise for our consideration in this appeal. i) Whether the grant of Survey No.61/1 to the father of defendants 2 to 5 enure to the benefit of family or whether the father of defendants 2 to 5 became the full and absolute owner of the said property? ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the same? 14. The suit claim proceeds on the footing that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 were members of a joint family and that schedule A1 to A6 and half share in A7 and A8 belonged to the joint family and that all of them were in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. 14. The suit claim proceeds on the footing that the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5 were members of a joint family and that schedule A1 to A6 and half share in A7 and A8 belonged to the joint family and that all of them were in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. Likewise, it was contended that suit schedule ‘B’ property was also jointly owned and possessed by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 5. It was claimed that in so far as schedule A2 to A8, the names of the plaintiff and defendants were jointly entered in the revenue records. However insofar as schedule item No.A1 is concerned, the name of the defendants 1 to 5 were entered illegally in the year 2019. It was contended that the schedule item A1 was land bearing Survey No.61/1, which was cultivated by the propositus-Yallappagouda Patil as a tenant and the RTCs for the year 1974-75 and prior thereto established the said fact. It was contended that the said land vested in the State Government on 24.07.1974, which is evident from the Mutation Entry in D.No.1626. Later, the State Government constituted the Land Tribunal to consider applications for re-grant of the land that had vested in the State Government. The father of defendants 2 to 5 had filed an application for re-grant and consequently, on 06.05.1978, it was re-granted to the father of the defendants 2 to 5. It was contended that even the said land was also cultivated jointly by the plaintiff and defendants. It was claimed that the defendants refused to partition the suit schedule properties, which compelled the plaintiff to seek partition and separate possession of his share in the suit schedule properties. 15. The defendant No.2 filed a written statement inter alia contending that the suit items 2 to 8 were cultivated jointly by the plaintiff and defendants and that in the year 1976, there was a partition between the plaintiff and the father of defendants 2 to 5, in terms of which, each of them were entitled to half share in suit items 1 to 6 and 1/4 th share in suit items 7 and 8. It was contended that the plaintiff was in separate possession of his share and was cultivating the same while the defendants were cultivating the property that fell to their share. It was contended that the plaintiff was in separate possession of his share and was cultivating the same while the defendants were cultivating the property that fell to their share. It is also contended that the father of the plaintiff died on 29.10.1963. It was claimed that the father of the propositus-Yallappagouda Patil never cultivated the land in Survey No.61/1 and that his name was entered in the revenue records by oversight. It was contended that suit item No.1 was earlier cultivated by Channabasappa Balappa Totaganti and that the father of the defendants 2 to 5 was cultivating it as a tenant. It was claimed that in the year 1976, there was misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the father of defendants 2 to 5 and that the elders in the family had advised them to divide the properties equally and cultivate them. It is claimed that the land bearing Survey No.61/1 was granted to the father of the defendants 2 to 5 and Form No.10 was issued on 27.04.1981. Therefore, it was contended that from the date of grant, the father of the defendants 2 to 5 was in lawful possession and enjoyment of the suit item ‘A’ property exclusively and that the plaintiff had no right, title or interest in the said properties. 16. The plaintiff, who was examined as PW1, denied that he and his brother had partitioned the properties of the family in the year 1976. He also denied that from that day onwards, they were in separate possession of their respective shares. He admitted that, his ration card and the ration card of the defendants showed that they were two separate families. He also denied the suggestion that except Survey No.61/1, all other properties were properties of the joint family. Ex.P11 was confronted to PW1 and it was suggested that the land bearing Survey No.61/1 stood in the name of Channabasappa Balappa Totagunti and that in Ex.P12 his name was rounded off and the name of the father of defendants 2 to 5 was entered. Similarly, Ex.P13 and 14 continued in the name of the father of defendants 2 to 5. He also admitted that the said land vested in the State Government after the Abolition of Inams and that on 06.07.1981, the land was granted to the father of the defendants, who paid the premium. Similarly, Ex.P13 and 14 continued in the name of the father of defendants 2 to 5. He also admitted that the said land vested in the State Government after the Abolition of Inams and that on 06.07.1981, the land was granted to the father of the defendants, who paid the premium. However, he contended that the premium was paid on behalf of the joint family. He admitted that Form No.10 was also issued in the name of the father of defendants 2 to 5. To a question whether he had any document to show that the land bearing Survey No.61/1 was granted on behalf of the family, PW1 stated that he did not have any document regarding the same. 17. PW2 was an elder in the village, who had mediated the dispute between the defendants 2 to 5 and the plaintiff. He deposed that plaintiff and defendants were in joint possession of the suit properties and that they had established separate kitchen for sake of convenience but were all cultivating the properties jointly. He deposed that he had advised the plaintiff and the defendants to divide the suit survey No.61/1 in equal shares, which was denied by the defendants. He deposed that there was no partition between the plaintiff and the defendants. He deposed that certain money was credited into an account under the Pradhan Mantri Phasal Beema Yojana in respect of certain crop loss and that he advised the plaintiff to handover a sum of Rs.70,000/- to the defendants. He also deposed that a sum of Rs.37,000/- which was paid by the State Government towards compensation of damage caused to the house due to floods was shared between the plaintiff and defendants. Insofar as suit item No.1 is concerned, suggestions were made to this witness that he was deposing falsely that the property bearing Survey No.61/1 was cultivated jointly and such suggestions were all denied by him. 18. PW3 was also another elder in the village, who had mediated the dispute between the plaintiff and defendants and his evidence is almost on similar lines. 19. The defendant No.2 was examined as DW1. In his chief-examination, he reiterated the assertions made in the written statement. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that the eldest son namely Ramanagouda was given in adoption and that his father had died in the year 2009. He specifically deposed as follows: 20. 19. The defendant No.2 was examined as DW1. In his chief-examination, he reiterated the assertions made in the written statement. However, in his cross-examination, he admitted that the eldest son namely Ramanagouda was given in adoption and that his father had died in the year 2009. He specifically deposed as follows: 20. Ex.P15 was also confronted to DW1, which was revenue records up to the year 1973 wherein the name of Yallappagouda Patil as shown as the cultivator in respect of suit item No.A1. This witness admitted the correctness of Ex.P15. He also admitted that after the death of Yallappagouda Patil, it was his father, who was the eldest male member in the family and that he was also the ‘Karta’ of the family. Though he claimed that there was a partition of the properties in the year 1975, no document to establish the said fact was placed on record. As a matter of fact, in his further cross-examination, he deposed as follows: 21. As regards suit items 7 and 8 are concerned, he deposed as follows: 22. The document that was placed on record insofar as Survey No.61/1 is an order passed by the Special Tahsildar directing payment of compensation to Channabasappa Balappa Totaganti in view of the grant of the land bearing Survey No.61/1 to the father of the defendants 2 to 5. The other document is Form No.10 issued by the Tahsildar pursuant to the grant of the land bearing Survey No.61/1. Except these two documents, the defendants did not produce any material to establish that the land in question was not cultivated by Yallappagouda Patil prior to the same being granted to their father. The Form No.7 filed by their father would have thrown light on the way the land was cultivated, but the same was not produced and marked before the Trial Court. Likewise, the defendants must have placed on record the deposition before the Land Tribunal to establish that it was cultivated exclusively by the father of the defendants, which too was not done. The defendants for reasons unknown did not produce the order of the Land Tribunal granting Survey No.61/1. Likewise, the defendants must have placed on record the deposition before the Land Tribunal to establish that it was cultivated exclusively by the father of the defendants, which too was not done. The defendants for reasons unknown did not produce the order of the Land Tribunal granting Survey No.61/1. Therefore, it is more evident that the defendants have tried to suppress material information from the Court and it is not as if the defendants were not in possession of the said documents or that it was not possible for them to secure the same through process of the Court. Consequently, an adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the defendants 1 to 5. 23. In view of revenue entries viz., Ex.P11, 12 and 15, that stood in the name of the propositus-Yallappagouda Patil, which was much prior to the land being granted to the father of the defendants, it has to be irresistibly held that the land bearing Survey No.61/1 was cultivated by the propositus on behalf of the family and that the right to seek for grant of the land was conferred on the father of defendants No.2 to 5 by virtue of prior cultivation of the land by the propositus. Therefore, it has to be held that the grant of land in Survey No.61/1 enured to the benefit of the members of the joint family, where the plaintiff also had undivided share in the properties. In support of the claim of the defendants 1 to 5 that there was a prior partition, there is not even a shred of evidence. No circumstances such as division of the properties by drawing ridge lines over the properties or fencing the properties separately or creating encumbrance on their properties etc., were pleaded or proved. Under the circumstances, the claim of defendants that there was a prior partition of the properties was not proved. Hence, the plaintiff was entitled to succeed in the suit. 24. In that view of the matter, we answer the points for consideration framed by us as follows: i) The grant of Survey No.61/1 of Budihal village in favour of father of defendants 2 to 5 enured to the members of the joint family and was not the exclusive property of father of defendants 2 to 5. 24. In that view of the matter, we answer the points for consideration framed by us as follows: i) The grant of Survey No.61/1 of Budihal village in favour of father of defendants 2 to 5 enured to the members of the joint family and was not the exclusive property of father of defendants 2 to 5. ii) That the impugned judgment passed by the Trial Court is just and proper and the findings recorded by it are based on evidence recorded before it. Hence, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs