JUDGMENT : M.G.S. KAMAL, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the legal representatives of the original defendant No.1 and defendant No.2, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 25 th July 2018, passed in O.S. No.125 of 2012 by the Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot (for short “the trial Court”), which decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff / respondent, granting a 1/10 th share in the suit schedule item No.1 property and a 1/5 th share in the suit schedule item No.2 property. This was confirmed and modified by the judgment and order dated 15 th March 2024, passed in R.A. No.112/2018 by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-1, Bagalkot (for short “the First Appellate Court”), granting equal shares to the parties. 2. The above suit is filed by the plaintiff seeking partition and separate possession of her 1/3 rd share in the suit schedule properties, contending that she is the granddaughter of the propositus Siddappa, who had three sons namely (i) Ramappa, (ii) Kudlappa, and (iii) Sharanappa. That during the lifetime of the propositus, Siddapa, there was a partition in which the suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of his eldest son Ramappa as per M.E. No.1617. The said Ramappa passed away on 30.09.1991, while his wife, Mallawwa predeceased him leaving them behind their legal heirs namely Sangawwa (plaintiff), Gourawwa, Gangawwa, Siddappa (defendant No.1) and Ramawwa (defendant No.3). The two daughters, Gourawwa and Gangawwa are no more. 3. That the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants. That upon the demise of their father Ramappa in 1991, names of his legal heirs were entered into the record of rights as per M.E. No.2298 with respect of the properties bearing Sy.Nos.53 and 172. The land bearing Sy.No.172 had fallen to the share of deceased Sharanappa, the third son of Siddappa. During his lifetime, Ramappa allegedly submitted a varadhi on 15.07.1985 to the Village Accountant regarding land in R.S. No.40/2B, purportedly relinquishing his rights in favour of his grandson, defendant No.2, leading to an entry in M.E. No.755. That the said Varadhi was without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff. She further contended that no partition had taken place amongst the plaintiff and defendants in respect of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the suit for partition. 4. Defendant Nos.1, 2, and 4 to 9 appeared through their respective counsel. That the said Varadhi was without the knowledge or consent of the plaintiff. She further contended that no partition had taken place amongst the plaintiff and defendants in respect of the suit schedule properties. Hence, the suit for partition. 4. Defendant Nos.1, 2, and 4 to 9 appeared through their respective counsel. Defendant Nos.3 and 11 were placed exparte. Defendant No.10 remained absent. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendant No.1. Defendant No.4 also filed a written statement, which was adopted by defendant Nos.5 to 9 by filing a memo. 5. It is the case of defendant No.2 that the propositus had three sons, namely (i) Ramappa, (ii) Kudleppa, and (iii) Sharanappa. It is contended that there was a partition amongst the said three sons of Siddappa in which suit schedule properties were allotted to the share of the father of the plaintiff Ramappa. Claim of suit schedule properties being ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants is denied. He also denies that after the demise of Ramappa, the names of all his legal heirs were mutated in the record of rights for the land bearing Sy.Nos.53 and 172 as per M.E. No.2298. He specifically denies that Sy.No.172 fell to the share of the deceased Sharanappa. However, he admits that during the lifetime of the deceased Ramappa, the land bearing Sy.No.40/2B was gifted to him, though he was a minor at that time. All other averments made in the plaint are denied by defendant No.2. Accordingly, he seeks dismissal of the suit. 6. Defendant No.4 in his written statement admits the plaint averments and seeks his respective share. 7. The trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues for its consideration: ISSUES 1. Whether the Plaintiff proves that, plaintiff and defendants are the members of joint family and the suit properties are the joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants and the plaintiff is having 1/3 rd legitimate share in the suit properties? 2. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that, Ramappa during his life time gifted Sy.No.40/2B to deft.2 and therefore, deft.2 has become owner of the suit property? 3. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable without impleading legal heirs of Gourawwa and Gangawwa? 4. Whether defendant No.2 further proves that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? 5. 3. Whether the defendant No.2 proves that suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable without impleading legal heirs of Gourawwa and Gangawwa? 4. Whether defendant No.2 further proves that plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? 5. Whether plaintiff is entitle for the relief sought for? 6. What order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 11.10.2017 1. Whether defendant No.4 proves that, they are LRs of late Gouravva and Gangavva and Gouravva and Gangavva had 1/5 th share in the suit schedule property? 2. Whether the defendant No.4, 10 and 11 prove that, defendant No.4, 10 and 11 are jointly entitle 1/5 th share of late Gouravwa? 3. Whether defendant No.4 proves that, D-5 to 9 are jointly entitle 1/5 th share of Late Gangavva as their LRs as stated in written statement? 4. Whether the defendant No.4 is entitled for the relief sought for? 5. What order or decree? ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 16.3.2018 6. Whether defendant No.2 proves that. suit property bearing 40/28 is his self acquired property? 7. Whether defendant No.2 proves that the suit of the plaintiff is time barred? 8. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and produced 3 documents, marked as Exs.P1 to P3. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No2 examined himself as DW1 and two other witnesses were examined as DW2 and DW3 and produced 13 documents, marked as Exs.D1 to D13. 9. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial Court answered issue Nos.1 & 5 and additional issue Nos.1 to 4 partly in the affirmative; issue Nos.2 to 4 and additional issue Nos.6 and 7 in negative. Consequently, the trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff is entitled to a 1/10 th share in the suit schedule item No.1 property and a 1/5 th share in the suit schedule item No.2 property. Defendant Nos.4 to 9 are together entitled to a 1/10 th share in the suit schedule item No.1 property and a 1/5 th share in the suit schedule item No.2 property. Similarly, defendant Nos.10 and 11 are together entitled to a 1/10 th share in the suit schedule item No.1 property and a 1/5 th share in the suit schedule item No.2 property. 10. Similarly, defendant Nos.10 and 11 are together entitled to a 1/10 th share in the suit schedule item No.1 property and a 1/5 th share in the suit schedule item No.2 property. 10. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the legal representatives of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 filed appeal in R.A. No.112/2018 before the First Appellate Court. 11. The First Appellate Court framed the following points for its consideration: 1. Whether the Trial Court is justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled for 1/5 th share in the item No.2 of the suit schedule? 2. Whether the plaintiff/respondent No.1 is entitled to equal share in item No.1 of the suit schedule in view of changed position of law after the pronouncement of judgment in Vineetha Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma? 3. Whether the Appellants have made out sufficient grounds to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court? 4. What order or decree? 12. On re-appreciation of the evidence, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. It further modified the decree by awarding equal share, holding that the plaintiff / respondent No.1 is entitled to a 1/5 th share in item No.1 of the suit schedule property, defendant Nos.4 to 9 are collectively entitled to a 1/5 th share, and defendant Nos.10 and 11 jointly entitled to a 1/5 th share in item No.1 of the suit schedule property. 13. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the legal representatives of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 have preferred this regular second appeal before this Court. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants, reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, submitted that the issue requiring consideration in this appeal pertains only to item No.2 of the suit schedule property, namely, the property bearing Sy.No.40/2B measuring 7 acre 1 guntas. He submits that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the said property belonged to Ramappa. However, the said Ramappa had made a varadhi, relinquishing item No.2 of the suit schedule property exclusively in favour of defendant No.2, and in furtherance thereof, a mutation entry was effected in his name vide M.E. No.755, as far back as on 15.07.1985. He submits that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the said property belonged to Ramappa. However, the said Ramappa had made a varadhi, relinquishing item No.2 of the suit schedule property exclusively in favour of defendant No.2, and in furtherance thereof, a mutation entry was effected in his name vide M.E. No.755, as far back as on 15.07.1985. He submits that the said revenue entry, not having been challenged by anyone, much less the plaintiff, has attained finality. That the trial Court and the First Appellate Court, without appreciating this aspect of the matter, have, on technical ground that the said relinquishment deed was not registered, decreed the suit while declining to accept the contention of the defendants. Hence, he submits that a substantial question of law arises for consideration. 15. Heard. Perused the records. 16. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also undisputed that the schedule item Nos.1 and 2 of the suit properties belonged to Ramappa. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants pertains solely in respect of item No.2 of suit schedule property, which according to defendant No.2, was relinquished by Ramappa in terms of the varadhi. 17. Any conveyance of immovable property value of which is more than Rs.100/- must be effected in the manner prescribed by law, i.e. through a registered instrument as required under Section 17 of the Registration Act. In the absence of such registration, no right, title, or interest in respect of the item No.2 of the suit schedule property can be created in favour of defendant No.2. 18. Since the suit schedule property admittedly belonged to Ramappa and was not conveyed in the manner known to law, defendant No.2 cannot claim any exclusive share, right, title, or interest over the same based on an oral relinquishment and purported varadhi vide ME No.755. 19. Admittedly, there has been no partition in respect of the suit schedule properties. Therefore, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court have rightly held that the suit properties continues to be the joint family properties. 20. Though the trial Court had initially awarded 1/10 th share in item No.1 of the suit schedule property and 1/5 th share in item No.2 of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court modified the decree, granting equal shares to the children of Ramappa. 20. Though the trial Court had initially awarded 1/10 th share in item No.1 of the suit schedule property and 1/5 th share in item No.2 of the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff, the First Appellate Court modified the decree, granting equal shares to the children of Ramappa. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the said conclusion arrived at by the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. 21. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.