The judgment establishes the principle that the assertion of joint family ancestral properties requires proof, and properties purchased with joint family income are liable for partition.

B.V. PINTO, J.—This regular first appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment dated 24.1.2007 passed in O.S. No. 143/2001 by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and CJM, Mandya, allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff and declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to ¼th share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff has filed the Cross-objections praying that she be allotted ½ share in the suit schedule properties instead of ¼th share as held by the trial Court. The parties are referred according to their ranking in the trial Court.

2. It is the case of the plaintiff that Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda had a son by name Ramanna and daughter Channamma. Both Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda and his wife Chowdamma are dead leaving behind their son and daughter. All the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda. The plaintiff and defendants are enjoying the suit schedule properties jointly as joint family properties. There was no division of properties between the co-parceners during the life time of Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda even after the death of Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda, there was no division of properties. Earlier Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda was the manager of the joint Hindu family constituting of plaintiff and defendant after his death, the family properties is being managed by Ramanna who is the 1st defendant. The plaintiff along with dependants is in joint possession and enjoyment of all the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are joint and ancestral properties and are yielding very good income as they are irrigated land. The 1st defendant in order to defraud the plaintiff is not disclosing the income from joint family properties and also attempting to alienate the same without any family necessities. From the last six months, there is a misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant on verification of the revenue documents, the plaintiff came to know that katha of suit schedule Item-7 has been changed in favour of 2nd defendant, who is none-other than the wife of 1st defendant without consent of the plaintiff. The suit schedule Item-8 has been purchased out of joint family funds in the name of 2nd defendant and, therefore, that item is also joint family properties. The 1st and 2nd defendants are colluding and attempting to alienate the properties to defraud the plaintiff. During life time of father of plaintiff, the family was in possession and enjoyment of the gold jewels, i.e., one kasinasara, 3 rope chain, kappa, 4 rings and one bullok cart, bulloks, now the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same. After the death of father of plaintiff. In view of the hostile attitude of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff has demanded for partition and separate possession of her legitimate share in the suit schedule properties, during the month of April, 2001 number of panchayath held in this regard and 1st respondent has totally refused to give the share of plaintiff the 1st defendant is not a law abiding person and hence, the plaintiff has no other alternative except to approach this Court. Hence, the suit.

3. The defendants appeared before the Court and filed their written statement. It is contended by the defendants denying the plaint averments and pleaded that plaintiff is a married sister of 1st defendant and ever since the date of her marriage she has been living with her husband in his house. Therefore, she cannot be termed as co-parcener along with the defendant-1. It is a fact that there was no division between the 1st defendant and his father. It is a fact that father of 1st defendant was managing the family till the 1st defendant attained the age of majority. Out of the money of 2nd defendant, the suit item-7 was purchased in the name of 1st defendant and after 1st defendant released the same, he consented for