JUDGMENT : Ashok S.Kinagi, J. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 19.12.2013 passed in R.A.No.26/2012 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Davangere, having concurrent charge of I Additional District Judge, Davanagere. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the defendant No.8, respondent Nos.1 and 2 were the plaintiff Nos.2 and 3 and the other respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession regarding the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiffs that one Kumbar Nagappa was the propositus of the family of the plaintiffs and defendants and the said Kumbar Nagappa had 9 children. The suit schedule properties were ancestral properties of Kumbar Nagappa who was the original propositus. During his life time, the first and second plaintiffs and third plaintiff's father, Channabasappa, came to Davangere and started residing there. It is contended that after the death of original propositus, the defendants have changed the khatha of the lands in the back of the plaintiffs by giving false information to the revenue officers. It is contended that the plaintiffs and defendants are the members of the Hindu Undivided Family and no partition has been effected between them. The Plaintiffs demanded partition and separate possession, claiming 1/4 th share in the suit schedule properties. The defendants refused and sold 'A' schedule property to defendant Nos.2 and 3, without the plaintiffs' knowledge. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 4. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and it is denied that the suit properties were belonged to the original propositus and before the death of Kumbar Nagappa, plaintiffs No.1 and 2 and the father of plaintiff No.3, by name Channabasappa came to Davangere and started residing for their livelihood. It is contended that there was an oral partition between the plaintiffs and the husband of defendant No.1 about 50 years back and by virtue of oral partition, the husband of defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that there was an oral partition between the plaintiffs and the husband of defendant No.1 about 50 years back and by virtue of oral partition, the husband of defendant No.1 became the absolute owner of the suit schedule properties. After the demise of her husband, defendant No.1 succeeded to the suit schedule properties, and Katha was changed in the name of defendant No.1. It is contended that, when there was an alleged prior partition, hence, the question of claiming the share in the suit schedule properties is not tenable. She submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation and bad for non joinder of necessary parties and properties. Hence, on these grounds, she prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.1. 5. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 filed a written statement reiterating the 1 st defendant's written statement and contended that they are the bonafide purchaser of 'A' schedule property by virtue of sale deed dated 23.01.2002. Accordingly, pray to dismiss the suit regarding 'A' schedule property. 6. Defendant Nos.4 to 7, 14 to 16 ( c ), 17 (a ) to 17 (c) filed a confronting written statement and also made a confrontation for partition and separate possession claiming their share, and accordingly, pray to decree the suit. 7. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues, and additional issues: Issues 1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit 'A' and 'B' properties are the joint family properties of themselves and the first defendant? 2) Whether the first defendant proves that there was a partition in the family about 50 years back and in the said partition her husband Hucchhappa had received the suit 'A' and 'B' schedule properties to his share? 3) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4) Whether the suit is bad for not including all the properties of Kumbar Nagappa? 5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitle to partition and separate possession of their share in the suit properties as prayed? 6) What Order or Decree? Additional Issue: 1) Whether the defendant No.1, 14 to 16 (c) and 17 ( a ) to ( c ) prove their entitlement to the share in the suit schedule properties? 8. 5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitle to partition and separate possession of their share in the suit properties as prayed? 6) What Order or Decree? Additional Issue: 1) Whether the defendant No.1, 14 to 16 (c) and 17 ( a ) to ( c ) prove their entitlement to the share in the suit schedule properties? 8. The plaintiffs, to substantiate their case, plaintiff No.2 was examined as PW1, examined two witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and marked 13 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P13. 9. On the other hand, defendant No.1 was examined the power of attorney as DW1 and no documents are produced on behalf of the defendants. 10. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides, and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1,4,5 and additional issue No.1 in the negative. Issue No.2 in the affirmative, issue No.3 does not survive for consideration and issue No.6 as per the final order. 11. The trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs vide judgment dated 10.02.2012. The plaintiffs, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.414/2006, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.26/2012 on the file of the Learned Prinicpal District and Sessions Judge, Davangere having concurrent charge of the First Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davangere. The first appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the plaintiffs have proved that they are having share in the suit schedule properties? If so what is the quantum of their share? 2. Whether first defendant has proved that there is already partition in the family about 50 years back and plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were allotted to the share of her husband Hucchhappa in the said partition? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession of their share in the suit schedule properties? 4. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court needs to be set aside or modified? 12. The first appellate Court, on re-assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 as the legal heirs of Channabasappa would get 6/20 th share, legal heirs of Hucchhappa, would get 6/20 th share and Jayappa, the second plaintiff, would get 6/20 th share, whereas daughters Gouramma and Basamma would get 1/20 th share each in the suit schedule properties. Point No.2 in the negative. Point No.2 in the negative. Point Nos.3 and 4 in the affirmative and consequently allowed the appeal vide judgment dated 19.12.2013 and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and consequently decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. Defendant No.8, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in R.A.No.26/2012, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 13. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for defendant No.8, and learned counsel for plaintiff No.1. 14. Learned counsel for defendant No.8 submits that, there was a prior oral partition between the plaintiffs father and husband of defendant No.1 about 50 years back, and in the said partition, the suit schedule properties fell to the share of the husband of defendant No.1, Hucchhappa. Based on the oral partition, the name of Hucchhappa was entered in the revenue records. He submits that defendant No.1's husband has been in possession of the suit schedule properties for more than 50 years. He submits that the plaintiffs have not challenged the entries in the name of Hucchhappa. He submits that, PW1, during the cross examination, admitted that the plaintiffs and the defendants are residing separately. The said admission itself is sufficient to hold that, there was a prior partition between the plaintiffs and husband of defendant No.1. The first appellate Court did not properly consider this aspect. He also submits that, the name of the husband of defendant No.1 has appeared in the revenue records for more than 30 years. The plaintiffs were self aware of the entries of the name of defendant No.1's husband. He submits that the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation as per Article 110 of the Limitation Act. He also submits that, the plaintiffs consented to the transfer of property in the name of the husband of defendant No.1. Hence, the impugned judgment passed by the first appellate Court calls for interference. Hence, on these grounds he prays to allow the appeal. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiff No.1 submits that the defendants have taken a defence regarding prior partition. He submits that, the plaintiffs have denied the prior partition, and to demonstrate that there was a prior partition, defendant No.1 has not examined any witnesses to prove the alleged oral partition. 15. Per contra, learned counsel for plaintiff No.1 submits that the defendants have taken a defence regarding prior partition. He submits that, the plaintiffs have denied the prior partition, and to demonstrate that there was a prior partition, defendant No.1 has not examined any witnesses to prove the alleged oral partition. He also submits that, PW1, during the course of cross examination, has deposed that the plaintiffs and husband of defendant No.1 are residing separately, but the PW1 has not admitted regarding the alleged oral partition between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1's husband. He submits that in a Civil suit, the Court is required to consider the entire material on record, but it cannot consider a stray sentence. To buttress his arguments, he has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court reported in 2007 (3) KAR.LJ 28 16. Hence, he submits that the first appellate Court was justified in declining to consider the stray sentence in the cross examination of PW1. He submits that the first appellate Court has rightly re-assessed the entire evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment passed by the first appellate Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, prays to dismiss the appeal. 17. This Court on 15.04.2024 admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment ignoring the admission of PW1 in regard to the prior partition which took place about 50 years back? 2. Whether the Appellate Court was justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court? 18. Reg.Substantial Question No.1 : The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession. There is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties to the suit and the nature of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs, to prove that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the husband of defendant No.1 produced the documents, marked as Exs.P1 to P5, i.e., RTC extracts, Ex.P6 is the mutation extract, Ex.P7 is the copy of the sale agreement, Ex.P8 is the copy of the order passed by Deputy Tahsildar, Exs.P9 and P11 are the mutation register, Ex.P10 is the house list, Exs.P12 and P13 are the tax paid receipts. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the members of a joint family, and no partition is effected between the plaintiffs and defendants. 19. During the cross-examination of PW.1, it was suggested to PW.1 that there was a partition between the plaintiff’s father and husband of defendant No.1 about 50 years back and the said suggestion was denied by PW.1. PW.1 during the cross-examination, has admitted that plaintiffs and the defendants are residing separately. The plaintiffs have also examined two witnesses, PWs.2 and 3, who have deposed that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants, and they are members of a Hindu joint family, with no partition having been effected. Even during the cross- examination of PWs.2 and 3, the defendant suggested to PWs.2 and 3 that there was a prior partition between the plaintiffs and husband of defendant No.1; the said suggestion was denied by PWs.2 and 3. 20. In rebuttal, defendants examined power of attorney of defendant No.1 as DW.1. He has reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief and also deposed that there was an oral partition between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1’s husband and based on the oral partition, name of the husband of defendant No.1 was entered in the revenue records. After the death of her husband, defendant No.1 succeeded to the suit schedule properties and the name of defendant No.1 was entered in the revenue records. 21. During the cross-examination, it is elicited that, DW.1 admits that defendant No.1 has not produced any records to prove the prior partition. No documents are produced to show that there was a prior partition between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1’s husband. Upon perusing the entire evidence on record, there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties to the suit and the nature of the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1 has taken a defence that there was a prior partition between the plaintiff’s and defendant No.1’s husband about 50 years back. To prove that there was a prior partition about 50 years back between the plaintiff’s and defendant No.1’s husband, defendant No.1 neither produced any records nor examined any witnesses who were present at the time of oral partition. 22. To prove that there was a prior partition about 50 years back between the plaintiff’s and defendant No.1’s husband, defendant No.1 neither produced any records nor examined any witnesses who were present at the time of oral partition. 22. In a suit for partition and separate possession, the initial burden is on the plaintiffs to establish the relationship between the parties to the suit, and the nature of the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.1, by filing a written statement, admitted the relationship, and the nature of the suit schedule properties but raised a defence regarding the prior partition. As observed above, the defendants have not produced any records except mutation extract. Merely the plaintiffs had consented to transfer the khata regarding the suit schedule properties in the name of the husband of defendant No.1, is not a ground to hold that there was a prior partition between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1’s husband. 23. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that PW.1, during the cross-examination, has admitted regarding the prior partition, which took place about 50 years back. 24. I have perused the entire cross-examination of PW.1. Though PW.1 has deposed that the parties have resided separately for more than 50 years, there is no such admission in the cross-examination regarding the prior partition. In a civil case, the Court is required to consider the entire pleading and evidence rather than a stray sentence. The said view is supported by the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P UTTANNA S HETTY (D) BY LR' S VS . P ADMA S HETTY (D) BY LR' S reported in 2007(3) K AR .LJ AT PAGE 28 25. The first Appellate Court has rightly concluded that there is no oral partition as alleged by defendant No.1 in the written statement, and the plaintiffs and defendants are the members of a Hindu undivided joint family, and no partition is effected between the parties to the suit and rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. The first Appellate Court has rightly ignored the alleged admission of PW.1 in the cross-examination. The judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law No.1 in the affirmative. 26. Reg. The first Appellate Court has rightly ignored the alleged admission of PW.1 in the cross-examination. The judgment and decree passed by the first Appellate Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law No.1 in the affirmative. 26. Reg. Substantial question of law No.2 The first Appellate Court has reassessed the entire evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the defendants have failed to establish the oral partition alleged to have taken place about 50 years back between the plaintiffs and husband of defendant No.1. The plaintiffs have proved that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants and no partition is effected and the first Appellate Court has rightly decreed the suit by setting aside the judgment of the trial Court. The Hon’ble Division Bench in the case of P UTTANNA S HETTY (D) BY LR' S VS . P ADMA S HETTY (D) BY LR' S reported in 2007(3) K AR .LJ AT PAGE 28 , held that “the evidence has to be understood in the context of the entire evidence and this evidence cannot be read in isolation as has been done by the learned trial judge. The pleadings and subsequent evidence would go to show that the answer “we are separated” would not result in showing a state of severance of status and partition, as held by the learned judge. In fact, the evidence of DW.2 is shaky, even according to the learned judge. Even the evidence of DW.1 is not to our satisfaction. The so called memo by V.A. was not placed before this Court. Taking into consideration, the entire material on record, we are not prepared to accept the findings of the learned judge of a severance only on the basis of a single sentence in the cross-examination of the plaintiff. Therefore, in our view, the findings on issue No.4 require our interference, and we do so by setting aside the findings on issue No.4”. The judgment in the case of P UTTANNA SHETTY (referred to supra) is aptly applicable to the case on hand. 27. In view of above discussion, the first Appellate Court, after reassessing the entire evidence on record, was justified in passing the impugned judgment. The judgment in the case of P UTTANNA SHETTY (referred to supra) is aptly applicable to the case on hand. 27. In view of above discussion, the first Appellate Court, after reassessing the entire evidence on record, was justified in passing the impugned judgment. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, I answer the substantial question of law No.2 in the affirmative. 28. In view of the above discussion, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is dismissed. ii. The judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.26/2012 dated 19.12.2013 by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davanagere, is confirmed. iii. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2022 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.