K.L.MANJUNATH, J. - (1.)THE appellants are challenging the legality and correctness of the Judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, (Sr. Dn.), Ramanagaram, dated 2nd Sept. 2004 in O.S. No. 52/1994, being not satisfied with partial decree granted to them.
(2.)THE facts leading to this case are as hereunder: According to the plaint averments, the plaintiffs are the children of second defendant born to his second wife Huchamma. The first defendant Sharadamma is the widow of one Narasimhaiah who was the only son of Kalyanaiah, born to his first wife late Puttamma. Kalyanaiah, the second defendant died during the pendency of the suit. After his death his daughters were also brought on record as defendants -2(a) to 2(c). According to the plaint averments, 30 years prior to the institution of the suit their grandfather Giriyappa died leaving behind him his three sons, namely, Kempadasaiah, Singaraiah and Kalyanaiah. After the death of Giriyappa all the joint family properties were divided among his three sons. After the death of first wife Kalyanaiah married Huchamma as his second wife and the plaintiffs as well as the defendants lived together as members of the joint family and since the second defendant has join hands with the first defendant as the second defendant made an attempt to create an independent right in respect of the suit schedule property to the name of the first defendant, the plaintiffs filed the suit claiming 1/6th share in all the plaint properties. Prior to the institution of the suit, the proceedings were also initiated before the Tahsildar, Magadi in RRT CR No. 338/89 -90 and the Tahsildar after detailed enquiry passed an order on 2.5.1994 directing the parties to approach the Civil Court for their redressal. In the circumstances, the suit for partition was filed by them claiming 1/6th share in all the plaint schedule properties.
The second defendant did not contest the suit. The first defendant alone contested the suit. As a matter of fact, the second defendant filed written statement accepting the averments made in the plaint supporting the case of the plaintiffs.

(3.)THE main contention of the first defendant before the Court below was that she admitted the relationship between the plaintiffs and the defendants. She also admitted that Kalyanaiah had two wives by name, Puttamma and Huchamma and her husband Narasimhaiah was born to the first wife Puttamma. She also admitted the suit properties as the joint family properties. She denied that the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are continued to be the members of the Joint family. According to her, during life time of her husband Narasimhaiah, in the year 1970 there was partition between late Narasimhaiah and the second defendant and Narasimhaiah continued to be in possession of the property as detailed in paragraph 8 of the written statement and after the death of Narasimhaiah, the first defendant made an application for transfer of revenue entries to her name from the name of her husband and that with an intention to knock of the property of the first defendant, proceedings were initiated by the plaintiffs before the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar directed the plaintiffs to approach the Civil Court. Therefore, she contends that the suit filed by the plaintiffs claiming share in the properties allotted to Narasimaiah as detailed in para 8 of the written statement is not maintainable and that she has no objection for partition in the remaining properties of the plaint schedule property. In the circumstances, she requested the Court to dismiss the suit holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim the share in the items mentioned in para 8 of the written statement.