JUDGMENT : R.NATARAJ, J. Defendants No.1 to 4 in O.S.No.21/2017 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Ranebennur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’ for short) have filed this regular first appeal challenging the judgment and preliminary decree dated 20.12.2019 passed therein, by which it was declared that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/4 th share in the suit schedule properties. 2. The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff claimed that she and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are children of Sri.Kariyappa and Smt.Suvarnamma. She claimed that Kariyappa died on 06.03.2008 and Smt.Suvarnamma died on 12.12.2009. She contended that all of them constituted a joint family which owned and possessed the suit schedule properties. She claimed that after the death of the propositus, she and defendants No.1 to 3 succeeded to the estate. She claimed that defendant No.1 had got his name entered in the revenue records of certain properties and some properties in the names of defendants No.4 to 6 and hence, they too were arrayed as parties. She claimed that all the suit schedule properties were ancestral joint family properties and all of them were in joint possession and cultivation and that they were not subject to partition. She claimed that she was entitled for 1/4 th share in the suit schedule properties and when she requested the defendants to partition and hand over her 1/4 th share, they refused. Therefore, the plaintiff sued for partition and separate possession of her 1/4 th share in the suit properties. The suit schedule properties were agricultural lands and some residential properties. 4. The suit was contested by defendant No.1. He admitted that the propositus died on 06.03.2008 and Smt.Suvarnamma died on 12.12.2009. He contended that the couple had five children including the plaintiff, among whom the eldest son Shivayogappa died as bachelor. He however, denied all other averments of the suit and also claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the suit properties. He claimed that all the properties of the family were not included and a complete family tree was not furnished and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. He also denied that the plaintiff had ever made any demand for partition of her share as stated in the plaint. He claimed that all the properties of the family were not included and a complete family tree was not furnished and therefore, the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. He also denied that the plaintiff had ever made any demand for partition of her share as stated in the plaint. He claimed that the suit was wholly undervalued as the value of the suit properties was more than 35 lakhs and therefore, the Court did not have pecuniary jurisdiction to consider the suit. 5. He contended that the suit schedule agricultural properties were not joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 4. He claimed that defendants No.1 to 4 had partitioned the properties on 04.11.2004 and from that day onwards the suit properties fell to his share and therefore was his self acquired properties. He claimed that since the properties were partitioned before the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 came into force, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share. He claimed that as per Diary No.1783 of Belur Village, the propositus and his brother had partitioned the family properties in terms of which suit Items No.1, 2, 3 and 5 fell to the share of his father. He claimed that the propositus had given Rs.1,00,000/- and 10 tholas of gold to the plaintiff at the time of her marriage in the year 1974. Therefore, it was contended that plaintiff gave up all her right, title and claim in respect of the properties of the family. He contended that the plaintiff was never in joint possession of the suit properties. He contended that since the propositus was aged and was not able to look after the properties, the partition was entered between defendants No.1 to 3 and their father on 04.11.2004 in terms of which the suit properties were partitioned and mutation entries were accepted in Diary No.47/2004-05 dated 27.12.2004. He contends that as per the said partition, suit Item No.5 fell to the share of defendant No.1, 2 acres 1 gunta out of4 acre 1 gunta fell to the share of defendant No.2 and the remaining 2 acres in the same survey number fell to the share of defendant No.3. Similarly, in R.S.No.34, 2 acres 17 guntas out of 4 acres 34 guntas fell to the share of defendant No.2 and the remaining fell to the share of defendant No.3. Similarly, in R.S.No.34, 2 acres 17 guntas out of 4 acres 34 guntas fell to the share of defendant No.2 and the remaining fell to the share of defendant No.3. Likewise, in R.S.No.120/1K out of 6 acres 21 guntas, 2 acres 21 guntas fell to the share of the predeceased son Shivayogappa and defendant No.2 while the remaining 2 acres fell to the share of defendant No.3. He contended that plaintiff had not questioned the mutation entries in Diary No.47/2004-05 dated 27.12.2004. He claimed that as per the partition, they had raised loan for irrigation purposes and the respective defendants were paying the land revenue in respect of their shares. Besides this, he contended that the father of defendants No.1 to 3 had one sister namely Kariyavva and that R.S.No.120/1A was given to her at the time of her marriage. He claimed that after the partition dated 04.11.2004, defendant No.1 had purchased 2 acres out of the aforesaid lands from Smt.Kariyavva for a sale consideration of Rs.92,000/-. Similarly, in Item No.6 bearing R.S.No.180/5, defendant No.1 purchased 21 guntas for Rs.25,000/- in terms of a sale deed dated 18.03.2009 from its owners Kariyappa and Chinappa and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for any share therein. Insofar as Item No.4 is concerned, he claimed that this was purchased by him in terms of the sale deed dated 03.04.2009 as per MR.No.15/2012-13 dated 21.11.2012 and he had given away this property to his son and accordingly, his name was entered in the revenue records. As far as Item No.7 is concerned, he contended that this property was already partitioned between son of defendant No.1 and defendants No.2 and 3. He claimed that as per the partition dated 04.11.2004 Diary No.47/04 was accepted in terms of which land in R.S.No.120/1B measuring 2 acres 21 guntas was transferred to the name of the eldest son Shivayogappa who died and later the name of defendants No.1 to 3 were entered in the revenue records pursuant to the Diary No.H25/2015-16 dated 27.02.2016. Therefore, he contends that this property was succeeded by defendants No.1 to 3 and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. He claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit properties. The written statement of defendant No.1 was adopted by defendants No.2 to 4. 6. Therefore, he contends that this property was succeeded by defendants No.1 to 3 and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. He claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit properties. The written statement of defendant No.1 was adopted by defendants No.2 to 4. 6. Based on these contentions, the trial Court framed the following issues: “1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties? 2) Whether defendant No 1 proves that suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? 3) Whether defendant No.1 proves suit is bad for partial partition? 4) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that Court fee paid is not proper? 5) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that on04/11/2004 partition has taken place among defendant No.1? 6) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that during the marriage plaintiff was given an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and 10 tolas of gold in lieu of her share in the joint family properties? 7) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the suit schedule B item No.6 is his self acquired property? 8) Whether the defendant No.1 proves that suit is barred by limitation? 9) Whether the plaintiff proves that she is in joint possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties? 10) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of her 1/4 th share in all the suit schedule properties? 11) What order or decree?” 7. The plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and she marked death certificates of the propositus and her mother and also produced revenue extracts of the suit properties as well as the residential properties as Exs.P.1 to P.14. Defendant No.1 was examined as DW.1 and he marked Exs.D.1 to D.16. He also examined a witness as DW.2. 8. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the plaintiff proved that the suit properties were joint family ancestral properties. It also held that the plaintiff was in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Therefore, she was entitled for partition and separate possession of her 1/4 th share in all the suit properties. It rejected the contention of defendant No.1 that there was a prior partition on 04.11.2004. It disbelieved the claim of defendant No.1 that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and 10 tholas of gold was given to the plaintiff towards her share in the joint family properties. It rejected the contention of defendant No.1 that there was a prior partition on 04.11.2004. It disbelieved the claim of defendant No.1 that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and 10 tholas of gold was given to the plaintiff towards her share in the joint family properties. It also held that defendant No.1 failed to prove that suit schedule ‘B’ Item No.6 was his self acquisition. It held that the suit is not barred by non-joinder of necessary parties or for not including any other properties. Consequently, it declared that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/4 th share in the suit properties. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants are before this Court. 9. Sri.Girish A.Yadawad, learned counsel for respondents/defendants No.1 to 4 contended that the trial Court failed to notice that there was a prior partition on 04.11.2004 between defendants No.1 to 4 and therefore, the plaintiff did not have any subsisting right, title or interest in the suit properties. He contends that though this was within the knowledge of the plaintiff, she did not raise any challenge to the revenue entries brought about. He therefore contends that the plaintiff fully knew that she did not have any subsisting right, title or interest in the suit properties. He contends that the plaintiff has filed a suit belatedly as the defendants had already partitioned the properties in the year 2004 and some of them had raised loans on their respective properties, which again was within the knowledge of the plaintiff. He therefore contends that the suit was highly belated and hence, the trial Court ought not to have entertained it. He also contended that the suit Item No.6 was a self-acquired property of defendant No.1 and the same was evident from the sale deed executed in his favour at Exs.D.12 to D.14. Thus, he contends that the trial Court committed mistake in decreeing the suit in its entirety. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties. He contends that since defendant No.1 claimed that the suit properties were partitioned on 04.11.2004, he thereby admitted that all the suit properties were ancestral joint family properties. 10. Per contra, learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that there is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties. He contends that since defendant No.1 claimed that the suit properties were partitioned on 04.11.2004, he thereby admitted that all the suit properties were ancestral joint family properties. He contends that defendant No.1 did not prove the partition dated 04.11.2004 and even if he did, the same was not binding on the plaintiff as she was not a signatory to the contract. He contends that, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma ( AIR 2020 SC 3717 ) the partition deed dated 04.11.2004 did not bind the interest of the plaintiff in the suit properties as she was not a party to it. He contends that, in view of the law declared in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra), the plaintiff is entitled to an equal share in the suit properties and the trial Court has rightly done so. He therefore submits that there is no need to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 11. After considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, the learned counsel for defendants No.1 to 4 and after perusing the records of the trial Court, we are of the opinion that the following point arises for consideration: Whether defendants No.1 to 4 prove that the suit properties were partitioned on 04.11.2004 and if yes, whether the said partition affected the right, title or interest of the plaintiff in the suit properties? 12. While the plaintiff claimed that all the suit schedule properties were the joint family ancestral properties, defendant No.1 contended that some of the properties were received by his father at a partition between him and his brothers namely suit Item Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5. Insofar as Item No.4 is concerned, he contended that 2 acres 21 guntas fell to the share of predeceased son Shivayogappa, 2 acres fell to the share of defendant No.2 and 2 acres fell to the share of defendant No.3 and mutation entries were certified in Diary No.47/2004-05. He however did not disclose as to how the family divided those properties. Similarly, insofar as Item No.6 is concerned, he claimed that he purchased 20 guntas out of 10 acres 6 guntas and therefore, it was his self acquired property. He however did not disclose as to how the family divided those properties. Similarly, insofar as Item No.6 is concerned, he claimed that he purchased 20 guntas out of 10 acres 6 guntas and therefore, it was his self acquired property. As far as Item No.7 is concerned, defendants No.1 to 3 had given away the said extent to their children. However, they did not disclose as to how they got the said property. They further claimed that they have divided the properties in terms of the partition dated 04.11.2004, however, to justify this, they relied upon mutation entries. Even if it is assumed that the properties were divided on 04.11.2004, the same was not binding upon the plaintiff as she was not the party to the said document. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vineeta Sharma (supra), the plaintiff is also a coparcener by birth and therefore, entitled to an equal share along with the defendants. The trial Court has considered the evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to partition and separate possession of her 1/4 th share in the suit schedule properties. Hence, the point for consideration framed by us is answered as follows: The defendants failed to prove that they have partitioned the properties on 04.11.2004 and even if they did, that did not deprive the plaintiff of her lawful right, title or interest in the suit schedule properties as she was not a party to it. Therefore, the defendants cannot claim that the plaintiff has no right, title or interest in the suit schedule properties. Hence, the appeal lacks merits and is dismissed.