JUDGMENT : HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR, J. Though the case is posted for admission and heard arguments on admission to find out whether the appeal is liable to be admitted or not, taken up for disposal. 2. The defendants No.1 to 6 have filed this appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2023, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Gadag, in O.S.No.141/2017 and the counter claim, thereby, the suit filed for partition and separate possession is decreed by granting 1/6 th share each. 3. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. 4. The plaintiff has filed a suit for partition and separate possession claiming 1/4 th share in the suit schedule properties by contending that the plaintiff is son of defendant No.1 through the 2 nd wife/defendant No.7 as the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties. 5. It is the case of plaintiff that the plaintiff is son of defendant No.1 and defendant No.7. Defendant No.7 is 2 nd wife of defendant No.1. Due to wedlock between defendant No.1 and defendant No.7, the plaintiff is born. Defendants No.2, 3 and one Rangappa are the children of defendant No.1 through the 1 st wife Ramavva. It is the case of plaintiff that after death of 1 st wife Ramavva, defendant No.1 has solemnized second marriage with defendant No.7. Due to wedlock between them, the plaintiff is born. Therefore, filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit property. 6. Defendants No.1 to 6 have appeared and defendant No.2 has filed written statement, which is adopted by defendants No.1 and 3 to 6. It is the case of defendants No.1 to 6 that defendant No.7 is not the wife of defendant No.1 and plaintiff and defendant No.7 are not at all concerned with the family of defendants No.1 to 6. There is no occasion for defendant No.1 to marry defendant No.7 as second wife. Further, disputed the relationship of husband and wife between defendant No.1 and defendant No.7. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit. 7. Defendant No.7 has filed the written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff and stated that defendant No.7 is the 2 nd wife of defendant No.1. Further, disputed the relationship of husband and wife between defendant No.1 and defendant No.7. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit. 7. Defendant No.7 has filed the written statement admitting the claim of the plaintiff and stated that defendant No.7 is the 2 nd wife of defendant No.1. Further stated that, after the death of the 1 st wife of defendant No.1, defendant No.7 has solemnized marriage with defendant No.1 and thus, defendant No.7 is the 2 nd wife after death of the 1 st wife. Therefore, marriage of defendant No.7 is legal one and plaintiff is son of defendants No.1 and 7. 8. Further, defendant No.7 has filed a counter claim stating that after death of 1 st wife Ramavva, defendant No.1 has married defendant No.7 as the 2 nd wife and declared defendant No.7 as legally wedded wife of defendant No.1 and also claimed 1/7 th share in the suit schedule properties. 9. Upon pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following: ISSUES 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants and there was no partition between the parties to the suit? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the gift deed executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and 5 in respect of Survey No.27/3 and 27/6 and it is not binding on the share of plaintiff? 3. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the suit of the plaintiff is suffering from non joinder of necessary parties? 4. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that suit of the plaintiff is barred by non joinder of necessary parties? 5. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that the suit of the plaintiff is bad for partial partition? 6. Whether the defendant No.2 prove that this Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit and Court fee paid by the plaintiff is not proper? 7. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for relief as sought in the suit? 8. What order or decree? Note: Issue No.6 is treated as Prl. Issue. ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 07/09/2021 1. Whether the defendant No.7 prove that, after the death of 1 st wife Basappa he has solemnized marriage with her i.e. defendant No.7 on 24/04/1985? 2. Whether the defendant No.7 prove that, plaintiff is the legitimate child of defendant No.1? 3. 8. What order or decree? Note: Issue No.6 is treated as Prl. Issue. ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 07/09/2021 1. Whether the defendant No.7 prove that, after the death of 1 st wife Basappa he has solemnized marriage with her i.e. defendant No.7 on 24/04/1985? 2. Whether the defendant No.7 prove that, plaintiff is the legitimate child of defendant No.1? 3. Whether the defendant No.7 prove that alleged registered gift deeds executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 and 3 is respect of suit schedule A and B properties are not binding on the defendant No.7 and plaintiff? 4. Whether the defendant No.7 is entitled relief as claimed in the counter claim? 10. On behalf of plaintiff, the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and one witness is examined as PW.2 and produced and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to P.35. On behalf of defendants, defendant No.7 is examined as DW.1 and defendant No.1 is examined as DW.2. The defendants have produced and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 to D.3. 11. The trial Court has decreed the suit by granting 1/6 th share to the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties by holding that defendant No.7 is the 2 nd wife of defendant No.1 and her marriage was solemnized with defendant No.1 after death of the 1 st wife Ramavva. The trial Court has discussed the oral evidence of the parties and more particularly the documentary evidence placed by the plaintiff, which are marriage invitation card, Aadhar card, election ID card and other records, wherein the father of plaintiff is shown as defendant No.1. Further, upon appreciating the evidence of DW.2, who is defendant No.1 that he has admitted that defendant No.7 married with him and therefore upon appreciating the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that defendant No.1 has married defendant No.7 as the 2 nd wife after death of the 1 st wife Ramavva and the plaintiff is son due to wedlock between defendant No.1 and defendant No.7. Thus, decreed the suit. 12. Thus, decreed the suit. 12. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perusing the material placed before the Court, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows: i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff proves that defendant No.1 has solemnized marriage with defendant No.7 as second marriage after death of the 1 st wife Ramavva? ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties? iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court requires any interference by this Court? 13. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that defendant No.7 is not wife of defendant No.1 and their marriage was not solemnized and plaintiff is not son of defendant No.1. Therefore, he has disputed the status of husband and wife between defendant No.1 and defendant No.7 and plaintiff is son of defendants No.1 and 7. Further submitted, appreciation of evidence made by the trial Court is not correct. Therefore, prays to allow the appeal by admitting the appeal. 14. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submitted by justifying the judgment and decree that upon considering the evidence on record adduced and produced by the plaintiff and defendant No.7, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that defendant No.1 has solemnized the second marriage with defendant No.7 and thus defendant No.7 is the 2 nd wife after death of the 1 st wife Ramavva. Due to the wedlock between the defendant No.1 and defendant No.7, plaintiff is born. These factors are all proved by the evidence placed by the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no need to make any interference in the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Hence, prays to dismiss the appeal. 15. Upon considering the appeal grounds, at this stage the crux of the matter involved in the appeal is, whether there was solemnization of marriage between defendant No.1 and defendant No.7 after death of the 1 st wife Ramavva and plaintiff is born due to wedlock between defendant No.1 and defendant No.7. To prove these aspects the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and defendant No.7 who is the 2 nd wife of defendant No.1 is examined as DW.1. To prove these aspects the plaintiff is examined as PW.1 and defendant No.7 who is the 2 nd wife of defendant No.1 is examined as DW.1. It is oral evidence of PW.1/plaintiff and DW.1/defendant No.7 that one Ramavva was the 1 st wife of defendant No.1. The 1 st wife Ramavva died and thereafter defendant No.1 solemnized marriage with defendant No.7 and accepted as second wife. Due to the wedlock between defendant No.1 and defendant No.7, the plaintiff was born. To corroborate their evidence Ex.P.5 memorandum of registration of marriage is produced, in which the names of defendants No.1 and 7 are appearing. There is no evidence disbelieving this Ex.P.5 memorandum of registration of marriage. Therefore Ex.P.5 memorandum of marriage registration is proved proving the fact that there was marriage solemnization between defendant No.1 and defendant No.7. Further, upon considering the oral evidence of defendant No.1 who is examined as DW.2 admitted in the evidence that defendant No.7 was living at Byahatti village and his photo and address is mentioned in the voters list. DW.1/defendant No.1 has admitted his image in Ex.P.35, which is the photograph. 16. It is evidence of DW.2 that when he had been to Siddaroodha festival, his uncle has insisted him to take photo and at that time he was shown in Ex.P.35. In Ex.P.35 his uncle and defendant No.7 were seen. DW.2 admitted that defendant No.7 is sitting by the side of DW.2. Further submitted that DW.2/defendant No.1 had been to the Sub-Registrar Office, Hubballi, for registration of marriage. It is evidence of DW.2 that his uncle has forcibly taken him to the Sub-Registrar Office, Hubballi and to give pose for the photo. This is not pleaded in the pleadings in the written statement. When this being the admission made by defendant No.1/DW.2, it could not be said that photograph of defendant No.1 and defendant No.7 were taken forcibly against his will. 17. Furthermore, Ex.P.5 memorandum of marriage registration proves the fact that the signature found on the said Ex.P.5 and signature found in the vakalat Ex.P.36 are one and the same, belongs to defendant No.1. DW.2 admits that he executed a gift deed in favour of his son and grandson in the year 2016. The signatures appearing on the gift deed, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.5 memorandum of marriage registration are one and the same belonging to defendant No.1/DW.2. DW.2 admits that he executed a gift deed in favour of his son and grandson in the year 2016. The signatures appearing on the gift deed, Ex.P.8 and Ex.P.5 memorandum of marriage registration are one and the same belonging to defendant No.1/DW.2. Therefore, this proves the fact that DW.2 has solemnized marriage with DW.1 (defendant No.1 and defendant No.7 respectively). 18. Further, in Ex.P.5 memorandum of marriage registration the name of defendant No.1 and defendant No.7 are appearing with signature of defendant No.1. The signature found on Ex.P.5 memorandum of marriage registration and vakalat are one and the same as admitted by defendant No.1/DW.2. Therefore, defendants No.1 to 6 have failed to prove that this memorandum of marriage registration is created and concocted one. 19. DW.2 admitted that he had been to Sub- Registrar Office for the purpose of registration of marriage. It is the case of defendant that his uncle had taken him forcibly to the office of Sub-Registrar. This evidence could not be believed at all. Furthermore, this forcible taking of defendant No.1 to the office of Sub-Registrar is not pleaded in the written statement. Therefore it is proved that defendant No.1 has not stated correct facts in his evidence. This is correctly appreciated by the trial Court. Further, it is admitted that in the photograph Ex.P.35 defendant No.7 is sitting besides him with appearance of his uncle. Therefore, solemnization of marriage between defendant No.1 and defendant No.7 is conclusive proof and also proved that plaintiff is son of defendant No.1 and defendant No.7. 20. PW.2 is the priest who has performed the marriage of defendant No.1 and defendant No.7. Nothing is placed on record to disbelieve the evidence of PW.2. 21. Therefore, upon appreciating the evidence on record the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that defendant No.1 is husband of defendant No.7 as their marriage was solemnized after death of the 1 st wife Ramavva. The defendant No.7 has become the 2 nd wife of defendant No.1 and due to the wedlock between them, the plaintiff was born. 22. In order to part away with the evidence of plaintiff and defendant No.7, there is no contrary evidence placed by defendant Nos.1 to 6. Therefore, in this regard the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and admittedly the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties. 22. In order to part away with the evidence of plaintiff and defendant No.7, there is no contrary evidence placed by defendant Nos.1 to 6. Therefore, in this regard the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and admittedly the suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties. Therefore, the trial Court has correctly allotted quantum of share to the plaintiff. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court requires no interference. Accordingly, I answer points No.1 and 2 in the affirmative and point No.3 in the negative. 23. In the result, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed.