JUDGMENT : RAVI V HOSMANI, J. Challenging judgment and decree dated 19.12.2009 passed by Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court-V, Mysore, in RA no.22/2008, this appeal is filed. 2. Brief facts as stated are that appellants were defendants in OS no.106/2007 filed by respondent (plaintiff) seeking partition and separate possession of 1/3 rd share in lands bearing Sy.no.154/1, measuring 7.7 guntas and Sy.no.159/1, measuring 1 Acre 2 guntas situated in Siddapura village; And also in Sy.no.185/2, measuring 1 Acre 38 guntas; Sy.no.207/3A, measuring 1 Acre 28 guntas and Sy.no.128/6, measuring 39 guntas, situated in Bhuvanahalli village (for short ' suit properties' ); and for mesne profits etc. 3. In plaint, it was stated, plaintiff was daughter of late Cheluvaiah @ Huchaiah through his first wife - Smt.Javaramma, defendants were his children from 2 nd wife. It was stated, plaintiff and defendants constituted Hindu Undivided Family (' HUF ' for short) and that suit properties were their joint family properties. It was stated, during his life time, Cheluvaiah was karta and maintaining suit properties. Therefore, revenue records stood in his name. And about 15 years earlier Cheluvaiah died intestate. Therefore, plaintiff and defendants succeeded to suit properties. 4. Such being case, without her consent, defendants attempted to knock-off suit properties and got their names mutated in revenue records. Plaintiff opposed same and questioned defendants. When they gave evasive reply and denied share in suit properties and did not account for income derived from suit properties, she got issued legal notice demanding her 1/3 rd share in suit properties. When there was no reply and defendants were making efforts to sell suit properties, present suit was filed. 5. On appearance, defendants filed written statement denying plaint averments. Relationship of plaintiff as daughter of late Cheluvaiah through first wife was admitted. Even defendants being her brothers as children through second wife was admitted. Existence of joint family including plaintiff and defendants was denied. Even suit properties being joint family properties were denied. Allegation about attempt to knock off suit properties by defendants was denied. It was stated, marriage of plaintiff with Kalahanumaiah of Mavatthur village, Hebbal Hobli, KR Nagar was celebrated during lifetime of Cheluvaiah, 50 years earlier by spending huge. At that time, Cheluvaiah had purchased land bearing Sy.no.81/4, measuring 2 Acres 21 guntas in Mavatthur village in name of plaintiff’s husband – Kalahanumaiah. It was stated, marriage of plaintiff with Kalahanumaiah of Mavatthur village, Hebbal Hobli, KR Nagar was celebrated during lifetime of Cheluvaiah, 50 years earlier by spending huge. At that time, Cheluvaiah had purchased land bearing Sy.no.81/4, measuring 2 Acres 21 guntas in Mavatthur village in name of plaintiff’s husband – Kalahanumaiah. It was stated, since marriage, plaintiff was residing in her matrimonial home which owned more than 12 Acres of immovable properties and a house. Thus, plaintiff was not concerned with family of defendants. It was also stated, item no.3 of suit properties i.e. land bearing Sy.no.185/2, measuring 7 guntas out of 1 Acre 38 guntas was acquired by Special Land Acquisition Officer, H.P., Hunsur and defendants had received compensation. It was further stated, on 15.10.1990 i.e. during life time of Cheluvaiah, properties were partitioned between defendants by executing panchayat paalu parikath, with properties in schedule ‘A’ allotted to defendant no.1, schedule ‘B’ to defendant no.2, subject to payment of two kanduga paddy and Rs.100/- per month by each defendants to Cheluvaiah. Since then, defendants were in separate possession and enjoyment of suit properties. In view of above, suit for partition called for dismissal. 6. Based on pleading, trial Court framed following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of herself and the defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the suit schedule properties? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits? 4. Whether the defendants prove that there was a partition during the life time of their father, in the year 1990, accordingly, the defendants were enjoying their shares in the suit schedule properties? 5. What decree or order? 7. In trial, plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.P1 to P7. No rebuttal evidence was led. 8. On consideration, trial Court answered issues no.1 to 3 in negative; issue no.4 in affirmative and issue no.5 by dismissing suit. 9. Aggrieved plaintiff filed appeal on various grounds based on which first appellate Court framed following points: 1. Whether the trial Court is correct in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/3 rd share in the suit schedule properties? 2. 9. Aggrieved plaintiff filed appeal on various grounds based on which first appellate Court framed following points: 1. Whether the trial Court is correct in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/3 rd share in the suit schedule properties? 2. Whether the trial Court is correct in holding that there was a partition during the life time of Chaluvaiah; father of plaintiff and the defendants, in the year 1990 and accordingly, the defendants are enjoying their shares? 3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree call for interference by this Court? 4. To what order? 10. On consideration, points no.1 and 2 were answered in negative; point no.3 in affirmative and point no.4 by allowing appeal, setting-aside judgment and decree of trial Court and decreeing suit holding plaintiff entitled for 1/3 rd share in suit properties. 11. Aggrieved defendants filed this second appeal. 12. Sri Abhubackar Shafi, learned counsel for defendants submitted appeal was against divergent findings in suit for partition and separate possession. It was submitted, there was no dispute about relationship between parties and nature of suit properties as their ancestral joint family properties. Defence set-up in written statement was prior partition, expenditure of joint family funds for marriage of plaintiff and purchase of property in name of plaintiff’s husband - Kalahanumaiah from joint family funds. 13. As pleaded, prior partition took place on 15.10.1990 during life time of Cheluvaiah. Though, defendants did not lead evidence, they not only elicited admission from plaintiff (PW.1) about prior partition, plaintiff admitted knowledge of same. While passing impugned judgment and decree, trial Court noted said admission to deny plaintiff’s claim. But, first appellate Court reversed finding on sole reasoning that panchayat palu patti fell foul of Explanation to Section 6 (5) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short ‘ HSA ’) for being unregistered. Said reasoning was contrary to law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thulasidhara and Anr. v. Narayanappa and Ors. , reported in 2019 (6) SCC 409 and Venkatasubramaniya Chettiar (Died) and Ors. v. Perumal Chettiar and Ors. , reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 1019 for proposition that a document in nature of memorandum evidencing a family arrangement does not require to be stamped or registered. v. Narayanappa and Ors. , reported in 2019 (6) SCC 409 and Venkatasubramaniya Chettiar (Died) and Ors. v. Perumal Chettiar and Ors. , reported in 2012 SCC OnLine Mad 1019 for proposition that a document in nature of memorandum evidencing a family arrangement does not require to be stamped or registered. Reliance was also placed on decisions in Amarjeet Lal Suri v. Moti Sagar Suri , reported in 2005 SCC OnLine Del 294 and Hemo Kanta Deka and Ors. v. Assam Board of Revenue and Ors ., reported in 2013 SCC OnLine Gau 392 for proposition that bonafide family arrangement if acted upon would bind all parties and estopp them from challenging it. Relying on decision in Anup Kr. Debbarma v. Ahindra Kr. Debbarma , reported in 2008 SCC OnLine Gau 565 , it was submitted, family arrangement does not require registration and would bar claim for partition. He relied on decision in Pichakarapaillai v. Pachayapillai reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 1705 14. Based on above, learned counsel sought for allowing appeal by answering substantial questions of law in favour of defendants. 15. On other hand, Sri Vyshak PN and Sri Bhargav D.Bhat learned counsel for plaintiff opposed appeal and contended suit for partition claiming 1/3 rd share was dismissed by trial Court without proper appreciation of material on record, especially, when relationship of parties and nature of suit properties was not disputed. It were submitted, though contended that Cheluvaiah purchased property in name of plaintiff’s husband, there was no evidence to substantiate same. It was submitted, case of defendants that suit properties were divided under panchayat parikath was untenable, since said document was not registered and plaintiff was not party to same. In fact, said parikath cannot be looked into in view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vineetha Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma , reported in 2020 (9) SCC 1 . It was submitted, dismissal of suit merely on admission without documentary evidence and defendants entering into witness-box, would be contrary to law. 16. It was submitted, revenue records produced by plaintiff showed entry of defendants name was not on basis of partition, but succession on death of Cheluvaiah. Therefore, plaintiff would be entitled for share either under Section 6 or under Section 8 of HSA. 17. 16. It was submitted, revenue records produced by plaintiff showed entry of defendants name was not on basis of partition, but succession on death of Cheluvaiah. Therefore, plaintiff would be entitled for share either under Section 6 or under Section 8 of HSA. 17. While passing impugned judgment and decree, first appellate Court noted defendants had not led any evidence to establish prior partition and drawing of inference by trial Court was only on basis of uncorroborated admission. It also noted unregistered palupatti would not meet requirements of Explanation to Section 6 (5) of HSA. Therefore, trial Court had erred in dismissing suit and first appellate Court was fully justified in exercising jurisdiction under Section 96 of CPC and allowing appeal. It was submitted no substantial question of law arose for consideration and sought dismissal of appeal. 18. Heard learned counsel, perused impugned judgment and decree and record. 19. This appeal was admitted on 02.11.2023 to consider following substantial questions of law. 1. Whether the defendant proves that the Appellate Court has committed an error in ignoring the admission of plaintiff in regard to the partition during the lifetime of her father and accordingly, the defendants are have been enjoying their respective shares? 2. Whether the Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court? 20. This appeal is by defendants against divergent findings in suit for partition and separate possession. Plaintiff’s claim is that suit properties were joint family properties and plaintiff was daughter of propositus – Cheluvaiah. To corroborate said assertion, she produced RoRs as Exs.P1 to P5 and mutation register extracts as Exs.P6 and P7. In their written statement, defendants admitted relationship and nature of properties. Suit was contested mainly on plea of prior partition. 21. Perusal of records reveal that defendants did not enter witness box or got marked panchayat palupatti dated 15.10.1990. They also failed to lead evidence to establish that partition even if entered into orally was acted upon. Except eliciting admission about partition effected during life time of Cheluvaiah during cross-examination of PW.1, there is no corroboration in any of documents got marked by plaintiff. 22. In so far as plea of prior partition, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vineetha Sharma (supra), clarified as follows: "137.5. Except eliciting admission about partition effected during life time of Cheluvaiah during cross-examination of PW.1, there is no corroboration in any of documents got marked by plaintiff. 22. In so far as plea of prior partition, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Vineetha Sharma (supra), clarified as follows: "137.5. In view of the rigour of provisions of the Explanation to Section 6(5) of the 1956 Act, a plea of oral partition cannot be accepted as the statutory recognised mode of partition effected by a deed of partition duly registered under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 or effected by a decree of a court. However, in exceptional cases where plea of oral partition is supported by public documents and partition is finally evinced in the same manner as if it had been affected (sic effected) by a decree of a court, it may be accepted. A plea of partition based on oral evidence alone cannot be accepted and to be rejected outrightly ." (emphasis supplied) 23. It is settled law that powers of first appellate Court in an appeal under Section 96 of CPC would be co-extensive as that of trial Court and it would be justified in arriving at independent conclusion, but on re-appreciation entire material and assigning cogent reasons. Likewise, about confinement of exercise of powers under Section 100 of CPC to only substantial question of law and exclusion of re-appreciation for correction of errors. 24. Allegation/contention of judgment and decree suffering from perversity requires examination whether any relevant material is excluded/ignored while passing judgment which would have material bearing on decree and whether judgment is based on any material which would not constitute evidence. 25. Decisions relied upon by learned counsel for appellant are for proposition that family arrangement would not require either to be stamped or registered and when same is established to have been acted upon, would bar claim for partition. 26. Admittedly, in instant case alleged prior partition is in writing. Whether same is in nature of memorandum of terms of partition or a family arrangement would be available for examination only if said document were marked in evidence. Therefore, ratio in decisions would not avail much to defendants. 27. Hence, substantial questions of law are answered as follows: 1: in negative; 2 : in affirmative. Consequently, appeal is dismissed.