- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by defendant No.3 against the judgment dated 20th January, 2003 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.F.A. No.319 of 1998. By the impugned judgment and decree the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of trial court and decreed the suit declaring that defendant Nos.1,2,3 and 4 are entitled to 11/50th share each and the plaintiff, defendant Nos.5,6,7,8 and 9 are entitled to 1/50th share each in the suit schedule properties.
(2.) The facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiffrespondent No.4 filed a suit for partition and separate possession of 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and also sought for an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. to ascertain the mesne profits. She is the second daughter of late Shri Kunnaiah whereas defendant Nos.1,2,3 and 4, including the appellant herein are the sons and defendant Nos.5,6,7 and 8 are the daughters of late Shri Kunnaiah. Defendant No.9 is the son of the first daughter of late Shri Kunnaiah.
(3.) Plaintiff claimed that the suit schedule properties are selfacquired properties of late Shri Kunnaiah and, therefore, she is entitled for 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties. Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 filed a joint written statement claiming 1/5th share in the suit schedule properties, as according to them the suit schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties. The appellantdefendant No.3 filed a separate written statement claiming the right over total 32 acres 55 cents of lands. According to defendant No.3, the suit schedule properties are the selfacquired properties of their father, late Shri Kunnaiah who bequeathed the same in his favour under a Will dated 14th June, 1991. As per the Will he is entitled for a total extent of 32 acres 55 cents of lands in respect of which the plaintiff and other defendants have no right whatsoever. The rest of the defendants did not choose to file written statement.;