re-appreciated both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, comes to the conclusion that merely because joint family members or any person, who as mortgagor redeemed back the properties mortgaged to anybody in respect of the family properties does not mean that unless it is shown on record that those properties have become an independent property. In this case, there is no evidence to show that Satyanarayana Sheregar being mortgagor of the said item Nos.10, 12, 14 and 15 had absolute right to mortgage those lands. The First Appellate Court also taken note of the admission given by D.W.1 in her cross-examination at page No.4 in Para No.2 dated 25.03.2014 to the extent that till date, all the schedule properties are in the possession of Veerayya Sheregar. D.W.1 also admits that there was partition in the family of her father Shankar Sheregar and item Nos.7, 8, 10, 12, 14 to 16 and 20 are not included in the partition deed and the same is discussed in detail in Para No.17 and 18 of the judgment and comes to the conclusion that the Trial Court incidentally discussed the right having purchased the same and Shankar Sheregar had acquired his right when all six daughters
