The burden of proof lies with the parties claiming joint family ownership, and failure to produce crucial documents can lead to dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. Mudagal, J.

This second appeal of the defendants arises out of the judgment and decree dated 01.02.2016 in Regular Appeal No.62/2014 passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Ramanagara.

2. By the impugned judgment and decree, the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the defendants and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2014 in O.S.No.113/2009 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Jude and CJM., Ramanagara.

3. By the said judgment and decree, the Trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff for declaration of her title to the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction.

4. Respondent was the plaintiff and appellants were the defendants in the said suit. For the purpose of convenience, parties will be referred to henceforth with their ranks before the Trial Court.

5. Subject matter of the suit were the lands bearing Sy.No.490 measuring 2 acres and Sy.No.491 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas of Vibhuthikere Village of Ramanagara taluk.

6. Plaintiff's case in brief was as follows: That her husband Honnaiah died in the year 2004. He had purchased the suit schedule properties and thus on the death of her husband, she has become the absolute owner of the properties. Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the brothers of Honnaiah. After the death of Honnaiah, they have clandestinely got entered their names in the revenue records of the suit schedule properties and denying her title. Therefore, she sought the declaration and injunction.

7. Defendants denied that plaintiff was the wife of Honnaiah and that suit schedule property were purchased by Honnaiah. They contended that the suit schedule properties were the joint family properties. In a partition effected in the year 1994 between plaintiff's husband Honnaiah and defendant Nos.1 and 2, the suit schedule properties were allotted to their share and thereby they have become the absolute owners of the said properties.

8. On the basis of such pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that both suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties of plaintiff's husband?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that plaintiff is legally wedded wife of late Sri Honnaiah?

3. Whether the plaintiff proves that the Panchayath Parikath dated 12.08.1994 is mash and evade?

4. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendants are interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties?

5. Whether the defendants prove that they are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties?

6. What order or decree?

9. The trial court after hearing the parties decreed the suit on the following grounds:

(i) The relationship of plaintiff with Honnaiah is proved by Ex.P4 Pension Settlement Record and Ex.P12 the written statement filed by the sister of the defendants in O.S.NO.36/2005.

(ii) DW-1 admits that, in Ex.P16 photograph, plaintiff is depicted with Honnaiah in his customary last rituals as his wife;

(iii) The fact of purchase of property by Honnaiah is proved by Exs.P6, 7 and 13 by oral and documentary evidence adduced before the court. The partition set up by the defendants is not proved.

10. The first appellate court by the impugned judgment and decree confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court holding that the serious dispute was only with regard to the relationship of plaintiff with Honnaiah and the said relationship was proved by Exs.P4, P12 and P16 and the admission of DW-1. The first appellate court further held that the trial court has decreed the suit on proper appreciation of the evidence and there were no grounds to interfere with the matter.

11. Sri.Raghu Prakash Babu D., learned Counsel for the appellants seeks to assail the impugned judgment and decree on the following grounds:

(i) The first appellate court has not dealt with the matter as per Order XLI Rule 31 CPC and has not re-appreciated the evidence with regard to the title of the husband of the plaintiff;

(ii) Plaintiff had not