The central legal point established in the judgment is the validity of the gift deed and the entitlement to a share in the self-acquired property.

K.L. MANJUNATH, J.—The concurrent findings of the Courts below are called in question by the unsuccessful plaintiff in this appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

3. Facts leading to this appeal are as hereunder:

Plaintiff and defendants are the legal heirs of one Rangappa who was the owner of 20 cents of land in Sy. No. 113/11 of Kadekar village in Udupi. The suit was filed by him in OS No. 123/1994 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Udupi claiming partition and separate possession of his 1/7th share in the suit property.

4. According to the plaint averments, the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 and deceased Kanya Kumari, whose husband is arrayed as Defendant No. 6 and Defendant Nos. 7 to 10 are the children of Rangappa. ‘A’ schedule property was granted to the deceased Rangappa by the Tahsildar, Udupi under grant order dated 19.10.1959 and that the plaintiff and defendants are the members of Hindu Joint Family governed by Mitakshara school of law. His father Rangappa was working as a Court Amin and died about 20 years ago and after his death his mother and other brothers are residing in ‘A’ schedule property and mother also died on 29.08.1992 and later he shifted his residence to a different house on account of misunderstanding among other brothers and, therefore, he filed the suit claiming his 1/7th share in the plaint schedule property. The defendant Nos. 3, 5 and 6 filed separate written statement supporting the case of the plaintiff. The second defendant alone contested the suit. According to the second defendant, Rangappa was the absolute owner of the suit property. He gifted the same in her favour after obtaining permission from the Assistant Commissioner, Udupi under a registered deed dated 20th July 1963, since then she has been enjoying the same as absolute owner and further contends that the plaintiff and other defendants have no right or interest to claim any share. Based on the above pleadings the following issues are framed by the Court below:

Issues:-

(1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the immovable property bearing Sy. No. 113/11, Punja, measuring 20 cents of Kadekar Village of Udupi Taluk belongs to undivided family of plaintiff and defendants?

(2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he and his mother have renovated the house existing in plaint ‘A’ schedule property?

(3) Whether the plaintiff proves that net annual income from the plaint ‘A’ schedule property is Rs. 6,000/-?

(4) Whether the plaintiff proves that the ‘B’ schedule movables are existing in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property and it is divisible?

(5) Whether the 2nd defendant proves that her father had executed Gift Settlement Deed dated 20.7.1963?

(6) Whether the 2nd defendant proves that she was residing through out in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property during the life time of K. Rangappa and after his death along with her mother?

(7) Whether the 2nd defendant proves that the plaintiff and other defendants have no right over the plaint ‘A’ schedule property?

(8) Whether the 3rd defendant proves that she is entitled for 1/7th share in plaint ‘A’ & ‘B’ schedule properties?

(9) Whether the 5th defendant proves that she is entitled 1/7th share?

10. Whether the 5th defendant further proves that there are other stainless steel and copper articles omitted in schedule ‘B’ the value of which is more than Rs. 10,000/-?

11. Whether the defendants 6 to 10 are entitled for 1/7th share together?

12. Whether plaintiff is entitled for reliefs claimed in plaint?

5. In order to prove the respective contentions plaintiff got himself examined as PW1 and he relied upon Exs.P1 to 6. The first defendant was examined as DW1. She relied upon Exs.D1 to D9.

6. The trail Court after considering the entire evidence held issue Nos. 1, 6 & 7 in affirmative, issue Nos. 2, 4 and 8 to 12 in negative in regarding to issue No. 5 suit document is held to be gift deed executed by Rangappa in favour of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit came to be dismissed.

7. Challengin