JUDGMENT : (M.G.S. KAMAL, J.) This appeal is by the defendant No.1 since deceased by his legal representatives aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 26.11.2013 passed in OS No.116/2007 on the file of Civil Judge, Sankeshwar (for short ‘Trial Court’), by which the suit for partition and separate possession filed by the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 4 herein came to be partly decreed allotting certain shares to the parties in the suit schedule properties which is confirmed with the modification by the judgement and order dated 20.03.2021 passed in RA No.5/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri, Itinerary Court at Sankeshwar (for short ‘First Appellate Court’). 2. The above suit in OS No.116/2007 is filed by the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein in respect of nine items of landed properties and three items of house properties situated at Honnihalli village of Hukkeri Taluk, contending that, the same are the joint family properties. That one Mallappa had two wives by name Sonabai and Shivabai. Plaintiffs and defendants are the legal heirs of said Mallappa. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6 to 8 are the children of said Mallappa. The deceased Settewwa was the daughter of Mallappa. Defendant Nos.5A and 5B are the legal heirs of deceased Sattewwa. Defendant No.4 – Dhondibai is the wife of another son of Mallappa namely Mahadev. That the suit schedule properties are jointly cultivated by the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4 as there is no partition. Plaintiffs filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of their 1/6 th share in the suit schedule properties. 3. Defendant No.1 filed written statement contending that the land bearing RS No.239 (item No.2) is not the ancestral property. That an extent of 3 acres 18 guntas out of 9 acres 13 guntas in RS No.239 was being cultivated by defendant No.1 as a tenant. The Land Tribunal, Hukkeri, had granted the said land exclusively to defendant No.1 on 17.03.1976. As such, the defendant No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land as absolute owner thereof the name of defendant No.1 alone has been entered into the revenue records in respect of the said land. The Land Tribunal, Hukkeri, had granted the said land exclusively to defendant No.1 on 17.03.1976. As such, the defendant No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land as absolute owner thereof the name of defendant No.1 alone has been entered into the revenue records in respect of the said land. It is further contended that, though remaining landed properties are the ancestral properties, there has been a partition between the plaintiffs and the defendants several years ago and accordingly, they are cultivating their respective lands separately, their names having been entered into revenue records accordingly. The defendant No.4 had given her share to defendant Nos.1 to 3 in a compromise that had taken place in O.S.No.188/1995, as such, she was not the necessary party to the proceedings, hence, sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have also filed written statement reiterating the contention of defendant No.1 that except land in RS No.239 other properties are ancestral properties as it was allotted to defendant No.1 exclusively. 5. Defendant No.1 has filed additional written statement contending that, the land in RS No.238 and land bearing Block No.114 (item Nos.8 and 9) are also not the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. The said properties are self acquired properties of defendant No.1. He purchased the property bearing RS No.238 measuring 30 guntas from one Smt. Kallawwa W/o. Babu Naik, Shivaji Laxman Naik and Ashok Ramu Naik on 19.04.2005 and land bearing Block No.114 measuring 31 guntas from one Maruti Krishna Khapale under deed of sale dated 25.06.1992 contending as above he sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. The Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit properties land Sy. Nos.179, 239, 230, 198, 317, 220, 222 situated at Honnihalli village are the ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants? 2. Whether defendant No.1 proves that he is the absolute owner and in possession of the land Sy. No.239 totally measuring 9 - acre 13 gunthas out of which 3 acres 19 gunthas? 3. Whether the defendant No.1 proves the already there was a partition effected between the plaintiffs and defendants and as per partition they are cultivating the lands independently? 4. No.239 totally measuring 9 - acre 13 gunthas out of which 3 acres 19 gunthas? 3. Whether the defendant No.1 proves the already there was a partition effected between the plaintiffs and defendants and as per partition they are cultivating the lands independently? 4. Whether defendant No.1 proves that, the defendant No.4 is relinquished her right in the suit properties in favour of defendant Nos.1 to 3 by receiving Rs.18,000/- from them as such the defendant No.4 has got no right in the suit properties? 5. Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are entitled for 1/6 th share each in the suit properties? 6. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that he is entitled for compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/-? 7. Whether defendant No.1 proves that no proper court fee is paid? 8. What order or decree? Addl. Issue: 1. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that item No.8 and 9 landed property mentioned in the schedule A and his self – acquired properties? 7. Three witnesses have been examined as PW1 to PW3 and 27 documents marked at Ex.P1 to P27. On behalf of defendants five witnesses have been examined as DW1 to DW5 and 27 documents marked at Ex.D1 to D27. 8. On appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court answered issue Nos.1, 4 and 5 in the affirmative and issue Nos.2, 3, 6, 7 and additional issue No.1 in the negative and consequently, partly decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 preferred regular appeal in RA No.5/2014 before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the share given to the respondents in the properties bearing item No.8 and 9 decreeing the suit in part is justified? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree decreeing the suit in part and given shares to the dead person is justified? 3. Whether the plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a court? 4. Whether the judgment and decree under appeal is contrary to law, facts, procedure and against the provisions of law? 5. What order? 9. 3. Whether the plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected by a decree of a court? 4. Whether the judgment and decree under appeal is contrary to law, facts, procedure and against the provisions of law? 5. What order? 9. On re-appreciation of evidence the First Appellate Court answered point No.1 in the affirmative, point Nos.2 and 3 in the negative and consequently, partly allowed the appeal modifying the judgement and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant No.1 represents by his legal representatives is before this Court. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal vehemently submits that the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court have erred in not taking into consideration the specific admission made by PW1 regarding severance of joint family status amongst the plaintiffs and the defendants. He submits that, merely because the defendant No.1 had admitted that except item Nos.2, 8 and 9 of the suit properties, rest of the properties are joint family properties, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in granting shares even in the said items of the properties considering the same as joint family properties. 10.1. He further submits that, when there is admittedly severance of joint family status, the grant in respect of item No.2 of the properties made in favour of defendant No.1 ought to have been considered as for the benefit of defendant No.1 and his family alone. He further submits that, the defendants had examined DW4 who has spoken about children of defendant No.1 being in Military Service, who had contributed for purchase of item No.8 and 9 of the suit schedule properties. Without adverting to the said evidence, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court erred in holding that the defendant No.1 had not produced any evidence to justify his contention of item Nos.8 and 9 being the self acquired properties. Thus, he submits that, the wrong appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties resulting in impugned judgement and decree is a perversity giving raise to substantial question of law. Hence, seeks for interference of this Court. 11. Heard and perused the records. 12. Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. Thus, he submits that, the wrong appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties resulting in impugned judgement and decree is a perversity giving raise to substantial question of law. Hence, seeks for interference of this Court. 11. Heard and perused the records. 12. Relationship between the parties is not in dispute. The suit schedule-A property consists of nine items of landed properties and suit schedule-B properties consists of three items of residential house properties. There is also no dispute of the fact that, except item No.2, which is the land in Sy.No.239 measuring 3 acres 18 guntas out of 9 acres 13 guntas and item No.8 which is land bearing Sy.No.238 measuring 30 guntas and item No.9, which is land bearing Sy.No.1/4 measuring 31 guntas, the rest of the suit properties are the joint family ancestral properties. 13. The specific case of the plaintiffs is that all the suit schedule properties being the ancestral joint family properties, as such they are entitled for share therein. While the specific case of the defendant No.1 is that, item No.2 was granted by the Land Tribunal in his favour exclusively and not for the benefit of the family and whereas item Nos.8 and 9 are his self acquired properties having been purchased by him under the registered sale deeds referred to in the written statement. 14. It is settled position of law that, when an existence of joint family and joint family property is admitted, a member of the family contending certain portion of the property to be his self acquired property has to prove the same leading cogent and acceptable evidence. In the instant case, defendant No.1 claims item No.2 and item Nos.8 and 9 of the suit properties being self acquired properties. As regards item No.2 of Sy.No.239 measuring 3 acres 18 guntas, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have extensively referred to the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties. 15. Ex.P.4 is the certified copy of Form No.7, which was admittedly submitted by the defendant No.1 before the Land Tribunal, Hukkeri. The contents of which, indicate that the same was in respect of five lands bearing Sy.Nos.230, 179, 220, 222, 317 and 198 as regards land in Sy.No.239 names of all the brothers of defendant No.1 i.e., Mahadev, Shankar, Babu, Maruti and Nivaruti has been mentioned. 16. The contents of which, indicate that the same was in respect of five lands bearing Sy.Nos.230, 179, 220, 222, 317 and 198 as regards land in Sy.No.239 names of all the brothers of defendant No.1 i.e., Mahadev, Shankar, Babu, Maruti and Nivaruti has been mentioned. 16. The Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that the defendant No.1 has affixed his signature as head of the joint family. Defendant No.1 has admitted signature in Ex.P4. The Trial Court on appreciation of contents of the said document has held that the application for occupancy rights at Ex.P4 was filed by the defendant No.1 on behalf of the members of joint family and he had signed the said application on behalf of the joint family. 17. The Trial Court has also taken into consideration Ex.P2 which is the RTC extract in respect of land bearing Sy.No.239 and Ex.P3 is the Kannada translation of the said document. It appears originally name of certain Babu Madu Mandekar had been entered into in respect of 3 acres 18 guntas of land in Sy.No.239 and thereafter, name of Mallappa Balappa Mandekar was entered and thereafter, the names of defendant No.1 and his brothers have been entered into in respect of said land. 18. The Trial Court has also taken note of the deposition of DW1, who had stated in his evidence that the said Babu Madu Mandekar was his grandfather. It has also taken note of the fact that Mallappa Balapa Mandekar was the father of defendant No.1 and plaintiffs. From the contents of Ex.P.2 it is cleared that land in RS No.239 measuring 3 acres 18 guntas was being cultivated by the grandfather, and father of the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 and thereafter, plaintiffs and their brothers were cultivating. 19. On the basis of this appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court has come to the conclusion that, the said land was not exclusively cultivated by defendant No.1 on tenancy basis as claimed by him but was being cultivated by the ancestors of the plaintiffs and defendants. 20. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence has also confirmed the said finding and conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court as seen at paragraph Nos.27 and 28 of the judgment. 21. 20. The First Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence has also confirmed the said finding and conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court as seen at paragraph Nos.27 and 28 of the judgment. 21. As regards, item Nos.8 and 9 are concerned the specific case of the defendant No.1 is that, he had purchased the said items of the suit properties out of his own income and with the contribution made by his two sons who were apparently rendering their services in the Military. The Trial Court at paragraph Nos.27, 28 and 29 of its judgment has held that though defendant No.1 claims to have had independent income to purchase the said lands no material has been placed by him before the Court in this regard. It has also taken note of the fact that though defendant No.1 had contended that his children are in Military Service having independent income, he has not produced any material evidence before the Court in this regard. The Trial Court has also taken note of the fact that DW1 himself had admitted in his evidence that the income of the family would be derived from the agricultural activities such as, growing tobacco, sugar cane, chilly and other crops, having sufficient income from agriculture sources enabling the parties to purchase the properties in their names. Based on the said reasoning the Trial Court declined to accept the contention of defendant No.1 that item Nos.2, 8 and 9 are self acquired properties, which view is confirmed and accepted by the First Appellate Court. 22. The aforesaid aspects of matter having been adverted to extensively by the Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate Court on facts and in the absence of appellant pointing out any irregularity or illegality in they appreciating the evidence and coming to the conclusion as noted above, this Court in the second appeal do not see any reason to interfere with the same. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed accordingly.