(1.) Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition filed by respondents 1 to 5. The appellant and the sixth respondent were respectively the defendants 1 and 2. For convenience, we will also refer to the parties by their rank in the trial court.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts are : Keshava Bhat - the first defendant, Narayana Bhat - the second defendant, and late Anantheshwara Bhat (husband of plaintiff no.1 and father of plaintiffs 2 to 5) were sons of one Sham Bhat who died around the year 1964. The plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of the joint family properties in the year 1971. In addition to defendants 1 and 2, the plaintiffs impleaded as defendants, the six sons of first defendant (defendants 3 to 8), the only son of second defendant (defendant no.9), the widow of Sham Bhat (defendant no.10), two daughters of Sham Bhat (defendants 11 and 13) and a daughter of a deceased daughter of Sham Bhat (defendant no.13). Sham Bhat's widow (10th defendant) died during the pendency of the suit. The plaintiffs alleged that the first plaintiff was a young widow and the plaintiffs 2 to 5 were all minors when the suit was filed 37 years ago; that they were kept away from the joint family properties; and that they had no access to the records pertaining to the joint family properties.
(3.) The plaintiffs alleged that the immovable properties described in Schedule 'A' and the movables described in Schedule 'B' to the plaint were the joint family properties which required to be partitioned. Schedule 'A' consisted of four parts (referred to as 'items' in the plaint) of the following description: