JUDGMENT : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and decree dated 16.07.2014, passed in R.A.No.182/2011 by the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their ranking before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession regarding the suit schedule properties. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 is the mother, defendant No.2 is the uncle and defendant No.3 is the brother of the plaintiff. The suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. The grandparents of the plaintiff i.e., late Gangappa and late Giriyamma had two sons and four daughters, namely late Hanumantharayappa, i.e., the father of the plaintiff, Chandrashekar, i.e., defendant No.2, Smt.Byramma, Smt.Lakshmamma, Smt.Jayamma and Smt.Channamma. The plaintiff’s father had two sons, i.e., the plaintiff and defendant No.3 and all the sisters of the plaintiff’s father were married long back and are settled in their respective husband’s house and they were given cash and gold by the plaintiff’s grandfather during their marriage. Hence, they are not made parties to the suit. It is contended that the plaintiff and defendants are coparceners and are governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. There is no partition effected between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff demanded partition and separate possession. The defendant did not heed to the plaintiff’s demand. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession.Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement admitted the plaint averments, and she has contended that she has not executed any gift deeds in favour of defendant No.3. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.2. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement contending that defendant No.3 had fraudulently created the gift deeds alleged to have been executed by defendant No.1 and the grandmother of defendant No.3 and also created a partition deed as per his convenience by inserting some of the other properties which are not at all the joint family properties. Hence, prays to decree the suit. 3.3. Hence, prays to decree the suit. 3.3. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. It is contended that the suit schedule properties are neither the ancestral nor joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. It is contended that the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties and the properties. It is contended that defendant No.3 had acquired the suit properties under the registered gift deeds dated 30.09.2006, 01.08.2006 and 30.09.2006 and the plaintiff and other defendants have no right whatsoever over the suit schedule properties. It is contended that defendant No.2 has been living separately for several years and performed his daughter’s marriage independently out of his own income and further, the plaintiff is having own house and residing separately. It is further contended that defendant No.3 has not taken any share in the joint family properties for which the partition was effected on 26.12.2006 during the lifetime of his father. It is also contended that the plaintiff is in possession of 34 guntas in Sy.No.144/6 and a house No.36/2 measuring 40 X 30 ft situated at Doddaballapura, and he has not included the said properties in the suit. Hence, the suit for partial partition is not maintainable. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the suit. 3.4. The Trial Court, based on the above said pleadings, framed the following issues, and additional issues: Issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that all the suit schedule properties are joint family and ancestral properties of the plaintiff and defendants? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties? 3) Whether defendant No.3 proves that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 executed the gift deeds in respect of the suit schedule properties in favour of him? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitle share in the suit schedule properties as prayed for? 5) What order or decree? Additional issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the two registered deed executed on 01.08.2006 and 30.09.2006 are not binding on the plaintiff? 2) Whether the defendant proves that all the properties are not included and whether there is a cause of action? 3) Whether the defendant proves that the deeds are valid? 3.5. 5) What order or decree? Additional issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the two registered deed executed on 01.08.2006 and 30.09.2006 are not binding on the plaintiff? 2) Whether the defendant proves that all the properties are not included and whether there is a cause of action? 3) Whether the defendant proves that the deeds are valid? 3.5. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW-1, examined one witness as PW.2 and marked 23 documents as Exs.P1 to P23. In rebuttal, the defendants examined 5 witnesses as DW.1 to DW.5 and marked 14 documents as Exs.D1 to D14. The trial Court after recording the evidence, hearing on both sides, and on assigning the verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue Nos.1, 2 and additional issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.3, additional issue Nos.2 and 3 in the negative and issue No.4 as per the final order and decreed the suit of the plaintiff for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff’s 1/4 th share in the suit schedule properties. 3.6. Defendant No.3, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.306/2007, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.182/2011. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court under appeal is perverse, capricious and arbitrary and it calls for any interference by this Court? 2) Whether the appellant has made out sufficient cause and grounds to allow I.A.No.I as prayed by him? 3) What order? 3.7. The First Appellate Court, after re-assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No1 in the affirmative, point No.2 in the negative and point No.3 as per the final order, and consequently, the appeal was allowed, the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.306/2007 was set aside Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed with costs. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.182/2011, has filed this regular second appeal. 4. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.182/2011, has filed this regular second appeal. 4. This Court, on 05.11.2014, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law : 1) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the lower Court and dismissing the suit of the appellant relying on an unregistered partition deed produced by the respondent No.3 at Exhibit D13 for which his father was not party and he was not allotted any share? 2) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in dismissing the suit of the appellant accepting the gift deeds alleged to have been executed in favour of respondent No.3 by his mother and grandmother in respect of the joint family properties without there being any partition effected by metes and bounds between the parties? 3) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in dismissing the suit of the appellant holding that the suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties as the four sisters of the appellant’s father were not made as party without giving an opportunity for the appellant to make them as parties by remanding the same? 5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. 6. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants and no partition is effected. He submits that the defendants have created a document marked as Ex.D13. He submits that the defendants have not acquired any title by virtue of an unregistered partition deed, Ex.D13 and he also submits that the signature of the plaintiff on Ex.D13 is created. He forcibly affixed his signature on Ex.D13. He also submits that Ex.D13 is an unregistered document and inadmissible in evidence, and that his father was not a party, and no share was allotted to him. He also submitted that the properties which were allotted in favour of the plaintiff are not the joint family properties. Gangappa and Giriyamma had no right to execute gift deeds in favour of defendant No.3 as the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and no partition was effected by metes and bounds. The first Appellate Court did not consider these aspects and proceeded to pass the impugned judgment.The impugned judgment is contrary to the records. Gangappa and Giriyamma had no right to execute gift deeds in favour of defendant No.3 as the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and no partition was effected by metes and bounds. The first Appellate Court did not consider these aspects and proceeded to pass the impugned judgment.The impugned judgment is contrary to the records. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants submits that the partition was effected between the parties to the suit, and the parties have acted upon the partition. He submits that the parties to the suit have executed an unregistered partition deed. It is an unregistered partition deed and based on the unregistered partition deed, the names of the respective parties were entered in the revenue records. The parties to the suit have acted upon. He also submits that Gangappa and Giriyamma were the absolute owners of the suit schedule properties, and they gifted the suit schedule properties in favour of defendant No.3 by executing registered gift deeds dated 01.08.2006 and 30.09.2006. He submits that the properties stood in the name of Gangappa and after his demise in the name of Giriyamma, and she became the absolute owner as per Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Hence, they had the right to execute registered gift deeds in favour of defendant No.3. Hence, the plaintiff has no right to challenge the registered gift deeds executed by Gangappaa and Giriyamma in favour of defendant No.3 and also has no right, title or interest in the suit schedule properties. He submits that the plaintiff filed a false suit with an intention to harass the defendants. Hence, he submits that the first Appellate Court, after reassessing the entire evidence on record, has rightly passed the impugned judgment. The impugned judgment is just and proper and does not call for any interference. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 9. R EG . S UBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW N O .1 AND 2 Substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 are discussed together as they are interlinked with each other to avoid the repetition of facts. 10. 8. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. 9. R EG . S UBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW N O .1 AND 2 Substantial questions of law Nos.1 and 2 are discussed together as they are interlinked with each other to avoid the repetition of facts. 10. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession, claiming that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff and the defendants are the coparceners and are governed by the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. No partition is effected between the plaintiff and the defendants. To substantiate his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and reiterated the plaint averments in the examination-in- chief. To prove that the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties, the plaintiff produced documents, marked as Exs.P1 to P23. Ex.P1 is the genealogical tree, Exs.P2 to P7 are the record of rights and index of land. On perusal of Exs.P2 to P7, the name of Gangappa is reflected in the revenue records, Exs.P9 to P15, P19, and P20 are the mutation entries and the revenue records, Ex.P17 is the order passed by the Tahsildar ,wherein Sy.No.26 to the extent of 2 acres 11 guntas and in Sy.No.25 to the extent of 2 acres 9½ guntas stands in the name of Giriyamma W/o late Gangappa and Sy.No.25 to the extent of 37½ guntas stands in the name of Chennagangamma i.e., defendant No.1. The said properties are standing in the names of Chennagangamma and Giriyamma W/o Gangappa. Ex.P13 is the RTC extract of land bearing Sy.No.26 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas stands in the name of defendant No.3. During the cross- examination he admitted that before the death of their father on 26.12.2006, they got divided the properties, but he has stated that the defendants taken his signature forcibly. To establish that the defendants had taken the signature forcibly on the partition deed dated 26.12.2006, the plaintiff had not lodged any complaint against the defendants, alleging that they had taken the signature forcibly on the partition deed. 11. To establish that the defendants had taken the signature forcibly on the partition deed dated 26.12.2006, the plaintiff had not lodged any complaint against the defendants, alleging that they had taken the signature forcibly on the partition deed. 11. The plaintiff also examined one witness as PW.2, who deposed that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, and they are in joint possession and no partition is effected between the plaintiff and the defendants. During the cross-examination, it was elicited that he did not know the transaction of the plaintiff and to that effect he did not have any information, and he was unaware of the transaction in the family of Hanumantharayappa. PW.2 has not supported the case of the plaintiff to establish that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral or joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. On the other hand, the defendants examined five witnesses and produced the documents, i.e., Exs.D2 to D3 which reveal that Giriyamma and Gangappa executed gift deeds in favour of defendant No.3 bequeathing the properties Sy.No.25 to the extent of 2 acres 9½ guntas and Sy.No.25 to the extent of 37 ½ guntas. The defendants produced the registered gift deeds, which are marked as Exs.D2 to D4. Based on the registered gift deeds, the name of defendant No.3 was entered in the revenue records and defendant No.3 has produced the pahani patra marked as Exs.D7 to D9. Ex.D10 is the agreement extract, Ex.D11 is the genealogical tree, Ex.D12 is the original registered sale deed, and Ex.D13 is the unregistered partition deed, which discloses that the partition was effected between the plaintiff and the defendants on 26.12.2006, Ex.D13 bears the signature of the plaintiff. The plaintiff except contending that the defendants forcefully had taken the signature on Ex.D13, has not produced any evidence to substantiate his case, but the plaintiff has not examined any witnesses to establish that the defendants had taken a forcible signature on Ex.D13. The plaintiff has also not challenged the revenue entries based on Ex.D13. The defendants have paid the duty and penalty on Ex.D13 before the first Appellate Court. Further, Ex.D13 was created by the defendants. The plaintiff has not challenged Ex.D13 in the present suit. The plaintiff has also not challenged the revenue entries based on Ex.D13. The defendants have paid the duty and penalty on Ex.D13 before the first Appellate Court. Further, Ex.D13 was created by the defendants. The plaintiff has not challenged Ex.D13 in the present suit. The plaintiff filed the suit after Giriyamma and Chennamma executed registered gift deeds in favour of defendant No.3 on 01.08.2006 and 30.09.2006, and the plaintiff, as of the date of filing the suit, the suit schedule properties were not ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants. There was a severance of status. The plaintiff has failed to establish that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants as of the date of filing a suit. The first Appellate Court rightly placed a reliance on Ex.D13 and came to the right conclusion that there was a partition effected between the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendants have raised a contention in the written statement that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties and the properties. During the pendency of this appeal, the plaintiff filed an application, i.e., 1/2024, to implead the sisters of the plaintiff’s father. The said application was allowed. Learned counsel appearing for impleading applicants submits that they have relinquished their rights in favour of the parties to the suit, and are not interested in prosecuting the appeal, and they have already received the amount in lieu of a share in the immovable property. Hence, he prays to dispose of I.A.No.1/2024. Hence, the First Appellate Court was correct in passing the impugned judgment. I do not find any error in the impugned judgment. Accordingly, I answer the substantial question of law Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative. 12. S UBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW N O .3 : Though the sisters of the plaintiff’s father are not interested in claiming a share in the suit schedule properties and they have contended that they have already taken their shares in the form of cash, and they have relinquished their rights in favour of the parties to the suit. The plaintiff has filed an application I.A.No.1/2024 for impleading the sisters of the plaintiff’s father. As the plaintiff has impleaded the other sisters of his father, the suit is maintainable as the sisters have already come on record. The plaintiff has filed an application I.A.No.1/2024 for impleading the sisters of the plaintiff’s father. As the plaintiff has impleaded the other sisters of his father, the suit is maintainable as the sisters have already come on record. Hence, substantial question No.3 does not survive for consideration. 13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I proceed to pass the following: O RDER The Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.182/2011 dated 16.07.2014 on the file of IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Doddaballapur, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore is confirmed. No order as to the costs. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, the pending IA’s if any, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, disposed of.