property was made for family necessities and to discharge, loan availed by the family. It is also to be concluded that the defendant No.2 is the bona fide purchaser of the suit schedule property. The perusal of the cross-examination of DW-1 makes it clear that the portion of property was sold in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant No.1 and in the remaining portion, defendants 1, 3 and 4 along with late Krishnamurthy were residing and further, the said Krishnamurthy died 20th November, 2005. In view of the fact that the plaintiff is the son of late Krishnamurthy through his first wife Chandrakala and the plaintiff is having share in the entire extent of land belonging to late Krishnamurthy. Therefore, after the demise of Krishnamurthy, the entire extent of suit schedule property including the property sold in favour of the defendant No.2 has to be equally divided and therefore, the plaintiff, defendant No.1, defendant No.3 and defendant No.4 are entitled for 1/4th share each in the suit schedule property. In this regard, the finding recorded by the Trial Court, holding that the plaintiff being the grandson of Siddagangaiah entitled for share in the suit schedule property is just and proper. However, insofar as the allotment of share is concerned the finding recorded by trial
