The admissibility of a document evidencing severance of status in a joint family, even if unregistered, for the purpose of showing the family's transition from an undivided family to a divided one.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31. 10. 74 passed by the civil Judge, Haveri in R. A. No. 273 of 1971 on his file, dismissing the appeal on confirming the judgment and decree dated 3. 9. 70 passed by the munsiff, Ranebennur in L. C. Suit No. 14 of 1964 on his file, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for l/3rd share and for partition of the suit properties by metes and bounds.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff Mayappa Maradappa Mayannavar filed L. C. Suit No. 14/64 on the file of the Munsiff, Ranebennur for declaration that he had 1/3rd share in the suit properties and for separate possession of the same along with future profits, ignoring the alienations done by the first defendant in favour of defendants 4 and 5. According to him, one Maradappa, the propositus of (he family had four sons, viz Durgappa, Mayappa, Nimbappa and Bharmappa. Mayappa is the plaintiff. Durgappa died in about 1956. His sons are defendants 1 and 2 Nimbappa is Deft. 3. Bharmappa died in about 1943 leaving behind him his. widow Chowdawwa. She is not a party to the suit. It appears that her claim' was settled in an earlier suit, namely, L. C. Suit No. 115/57.

( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendants. According to them, the suit properties were not joint family properties. They were the acquisition of Durgappa. The plaintiff had no title or interest in them. There was already severance of status in the femily" long ago. They further contended that even the immoveable properties were divided in the year 1944. They further contested the right of the plaintiff, in challenging the alienations. The trial court raised the following issues as arising from the pleadings. (1) Whether defendants prove the partition in all the joint family properties as contended in para 1 of their W. S. ? (2) Does plaintiff prove that the suit properties are joint family properties of plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3? (3) Does he prove that the suit properties given to Chowdavva, widow of Bharmappa were all acquired by joint labour and earning of joint family business and for the benefit of the joint family as contended in para-4 of the plaint and that the same were treated as joint family properties? (4) Whether defendants prove that the said properties were self acquired separate properties of defendants 1 and 2's father and grand-father only ? (5) Whether defendants 4, 5 and 6 prove that the alienations in their favour were for legal necessity and for benefit of the joint family and as such binding on plaintiff ? (6) Whether the present suit is barred by res-judicata in view of decree in L. C. Suit 115/57 of Ranebennur Civil Judge court and whether the said decree binds the plaintiff? (7) Whether the partition effected between defendants 1 to 3 interse in respect of C. T. S. No. 2759/a is valid and binding on plaintiff? (8) To what reliefs are parties entitled?

( 4 ) THE trial court, appreciating the evidence on record, answered Issues 1, 4, 5 and 6 in the negative and Issues 2, 3 and 7 in the affirmative and in that view decreed the suit of the plaintiff with costs. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants went up in appeal before the learned civil judge, Haveri in R. A. No. 273/71.

( 5 ) THE learned civil Judge, in the course of his judgment, raised the following points as arising for his consideration. (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit properties are the joint family properties? (2) Whether the defendants prove that there was partition in the joint family and there was partition between the plaintiff and his brothers? (3) Whether defendants 1, 2 and 3 prove that the suit properties are the self acquired propertise of their father and uncles? (4) Whether the defendants 4 and 5 prove that the alienation made in their favour by defendants 1 to 3 are for legal necessity ?' (5) Whether the suit is hit by Sec, 11 of C. P. C (6) Whether the partition effected between defendants 1 to 3