The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove joint possession and the nature of property as joint family or self-acquired, along with the burden of proof regarding the source of property acquisition.

1. This Regular First Appeal is filed by the legal representatives of plaintiffs No. 2 and 3 being aggrieved of the judgment and decree dated 15th November 2006 in OS No.3578 of 1990 on the file of the I Additional city Civil and Sessions Judge, Bangalore City (CCH-2). The court below by the impugned judgment and decree dismissed the suit for partition, possession and also for the relief of mesne profits.

2. The parties would be referred to their rank in the suit for convenience.

Brief facts of the case are that K. Ramaswamy, is the father of plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and defendant No.1. K. Ramaswamy purchased the plaint schedule property under a registered Sale deed dated 24th September 1953. Said K. Ramaswamy died on 04th July 1969 leaving behind him the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 as his legal heirs. Thereafter, plaintiffs No.1 to 4 and defendant No.1 succeeded to the plaint schedule property. Plaintiffs and defendant No.1 joined together and got executed an oral settlement deed with regard to the partition by metes and bounds. But, later on defendant No.1 did not come forward to act upon it. The defendant No.1 is alone collecting rent from the tenants. Defendants No.2 to 4 are the tenants. Plaintiffs requested the defendant No.1 to effect partition. The defendant No.1 having not come forward to effect partition in the plaint schedule property, the plaintiffs got issued a legal notice to the defendant No.1 for which the defendant No.1 gave an evasive reply. Hence the suit came to be filed.

3. Defendants No.1 to 4 entered appearance. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement. Defendants No.2 and 3 filed a joint written statement.

4. Defendant No.1 has denied the existence of joint family consisting of him and the plaintiffs and also denied that the plaint schedule property is a joint family property. Defendant No.1 denied the right, share or interest of the plaintiffs over the plaint schedule property. It is his contention that in the month of May 1986 oral partition has taken place between him and plaintiffs and in the said partition the plaint schedule property has fallen to his share. Hence, the defendant No.1 has got absolute and exclusive right over the plaint schedule property. He further contended that his father K. Ramaswamy sold one of his properties and performed the marriage of plaintiff No.4 out of the proceeds and in the remaining consideration amount he purchased two sites in the name of plaintiffs No.2 and 3. In the said oral partition, said two sites were given to the share of plaintiffs No.2 and 3. Plaintiff No.1 took all the movables and gold ornaments. One site was also purchased in the name of plaintiff No.1 out of the joint family funds during the lifetime of said K. Ramaswamy. Hence, the properties which are described in the written statement schedule, are also the joint family properties. If the plaint schedule property is to be considered as a joint family property, then item No.1 to 3 of the written statement schedule property are also to be included as suit schedule property and legitimate share of the defendant No.1 be awarded in his favour.

5. Defendants No.2 and 3 have contended in their written statement that they are the tenants of portion of the plaint schedule property. Since there is conflicting demands in respect of the rents, the defendants No.2 and 3 sought permission to deposit the rents in the court.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings court below has framed the necessary issues regarding existence of the joint hindu family and joint possession of the suit property, as to suit schedule property being self acquired property of father of the parties and now it is absolute property of defendant No.1, proof of oral partition; and entitlement of the plaintiffs for the suit relief.

7. On the basis of the additional pleadings two additional issues were framed about the written statement schedule properties being joint family properties and if so, entitlement of first defendant for share in