The Mysore Hindu Law Women's Rights Act, 1933, provides enlarged rights to Hindu women, and the legitimate expenses of marriage, including a marriage portion, are to be set off against the share of an unmarried daughter in joint family properties.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is preferred against the judgement and decree dated 30-7-1980 passed by the learned IVth addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore City, in O. S. No. 20/72.

( 2 ) THE following are the suit schedule properties: schedule1 ). Dry land Sy. No. 35/4-5j guntas in Kethamaranahally, Rajajinagar, bangalore, bounded on the East by subbaiah and Marappa land; West by Muniswamappa's land, North by muniyappa's land and South by peth and Sy No. 1. 2 ). Tiled roofed house No. 131 in s. No 35/14 (formerly part of Sy. No. 35/4) of 1 guntas, Kethamaranahally, rajajinagar, Bangalore, bounded on the: east by road; West by Marappa and muiswamappa's houses; North by galli and Subbaiah's house and South by road; 3 ). Dry land Sy. No. 150/10-17 guntas of land now it is concerned as sites by City Improvements Trust, Bangalore as Chord Road, It Stage, Kechamaranahally, rajajinagar, Bangalore and bounded on the East by Muniswamappa's land. West by Dille Mone Nanjappa's land. North by Muniappa's land. 4 ). Sy. No. 1 site Nos. 640, 641, 664 and 665, measuring 108 plus 115 x 44 plus 66, Kethamaranahally, Rajajinagar, bangalore; this property is standing in the name of Marakka mother of plaintiff and defendants 2 and 3, bounded on the : east by Road; west by Road; north by Road and south by Hanumanna 's house; 5 ). The sum of Rs. 83,000/- deposited in the Indian Bank Ltd. , 385,1 Block, rajajinagar, Bangalore-10, by the first defendant in any one of the account of the Bank through Cheque No. W 1069593 dated 1-9-71 on the Syndicate bank; Malleswaram Branch, Bangalore. "

( 3 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :1. Whether the first defendant proves that the plaintiff has been adopted by one Mallappa and as such is not a member of the joint Hindu family? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit item No. 4 is self acquired property of Marakka the wife of the first defendant? 3. Whether the suit item No. 5 is the self acquisition of first defendant? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties? 5. Whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of parties and cause of action ? 6. To what other relief if any is the plaintiff entitled?additionsl Issue :- whether the 5th defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value of the suit item no. 4 without notice ?

( 4 ) THE trial Court has held that first defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff has been given in adoption to one Sri Mallappa; that suit item Nos. 4 and 5 are not the self acquired properties of Smt. Marakka-the wife of the first defendant and the first defendant respectively; that the suit schedule properties item Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 are joint family properties and are available for partition; that defendant No. 5 is not a bona fide purchaser and the alienation made in his favour is hit by lis pendence; that the unmarried daughter, the present sixth respondent, is a necessary party to the suit as on the date of institution of the suit she was unmarried; that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i. e , the 6th respondent; that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/4th share in the suit schedule item Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5; that item No. 3 of the suit schedule properties is not available for partition. However, having regard to the finding on issue No. 5, regarding non-joinder of necessary party, the suit has been dismissed.

( 5 ) IN this appeal the unmarried daughter by name Smt. K. Vimala has been impleaded as respondent No. 6. Respondents 1 to 5 are defendants 1 to 5. The appellant is the plaintiff. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. First defendant and 4th defendant who are respondents 1 and 4 in the appeal are husband and wife. The plaintiff appellant and defendants 2 and 3-respondents 2 and 3 are the sons of defendants 1 and 4-respondents 1 and 4. Sixth respondent impleaded in the appeal is also the daughter of defendants 1 and 4-respondents 1 and 4 and the s