(1.) THE defendants are the appellants, the suit for partition and separate possession was dismissed by the trial court, but came to be decreed by the first appellate court. Hence the defendants are before this court in the second appeal.
(2.) FACTS of the case leading to the present appeal, in brief are as under. The propositus alagouda had 2 sons by name malagouda and ramagouda; malagouda and ramagouda constituted joint family and they were in joint possession of suit land r. s. No. 62/1 measuring 5 acres 18 guntas and r. s. No. 62/2 measuring 5 acres 19 guntas as tenants from the time of the father. Both malagouda and ramagouda died in jointness; plaintiffs case is that he represents branch of ramagouda and defendants 1 to 4 represent the branch of malagouda; that occupancy rights are granted jointly in their favour; that without actual partition by metes and bounds, they are cultivating their respective share separately; that since about 4 years his relations with defendants are strained and defendants are intending to defeat his share in the suit lands, and therefore he is constrained to file the suit for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit lands.
(3.) THE specific defence is that only suit land r. s. No. 62/2 is tenanted land of the joint family of malagouda and ramagouda; that r. s. No. 62/1 is the self acquired tenanted land of malagouda and ramagouda had no right to the said lands that ever since 1961, r. s. No. 62/1 is enjoyed exclusively by defendnnts; that plaintiffs father submitted declaration in form No. 7 for grant of occupancy rights to equal extent in r. s. No. 62/2 only and did not apply to r. s. No. 62/1 and that plaintiff is not entitled to any share in r. s. No. 62/1. Defendants further contend that ramagouda has left behind his widow, two daughters, besides the plaintiff; that widow and two daughters of deceased ramagouda are also necessary parties and that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.