The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for legal necessity in the sale of joint family property and the importance of providing a clear description of the property in the plaint as per Order VII Rule 3 of CPC.

JUDGMENT

Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J. - The third defendant in the suit is the appellant. She has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court decreeing the suit for partition in respect of a property described in schedule-III to the plaint. She is a purchaser of the property from the first defendant on 18.01.1980.

2. The plaintiffs 1 to 3 are all the sons of first defendant. The second defendant was another son of the first defendant; he was unmarried and died during pendency of the suit. Defendants 4 to 6 are the daughters of the first defendant. The plaintiffs claimed partition in the properties described in schedules-I to VI of the plaint. Schedules-I to III consist of house properties, schedule-V comprises of agricultural land at Channapura Village and in schedule-IV movables such as jewellery and vessels are shown. Schedule-VI consists of some fixed deposits at Canara Bank and Bangalore Central Co-operative Bank. According to the plaintiffs all the schedule properties belong to the joint family consisting of themselves and defendants 1 and 2. They stated that on 5.10.1944 there took place a partition of ancestral properties between their father i.e., the first defendant and his three brothers. In the said partition, schedule-II property was allotted to the first defendant. The partition deed contains a recital that the first defendant and his brothers had already effected partition of the properties at the village Channapura and the house at Bengaluru was not partitioned and therefore on 5.10.1944 partition of this house took place. They stated that the first defendant acquired other schedule properties with the aid of income derived from the properties at the village and rental income from item no. II.

3. The defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 filed written statement contending very specifically that defendant no. 1 earned properties at Bengaluru from his own income. He also raised loan for construction of a house. They denied that the schedule properties belonged to joint family. With respect to schedule-Ill property, they contended that the first defendant sold it to the third defendant on 18.01.1980 for sale consideration of Rs. 14,000/- as he was to discharge a loan. They also stated that the plaintiffs were entitled to claim share in schedule-V property and that schedule-IV property did not exist at all.

4. The trial court raised seven issues. Second plaintiff gave evidence as PW-1 and produced the documents as per Ex.P. 1 to P. 3. He was not cross examined. The defendants did not adduce evidence from their side. On appreciation of evidence the trial court recorded the findings that Ex. P.3, the partition deed, clearly shows that the first defendant and his brothers had effected partition of their landed property at Channapura village, Nagamangala Taluk, Mandya District, but at that time, the schedule-II property situated at Gavipuram Guttahalli, Bengaluru was not subjected to partition. Therefore on 4.10.1944, as evidenced by Ex.P.3, the house was subjected to partition. It was valued at Rs. 600/-. The first defendant retained the house by paying to his brothers the value of their shares in the house and therefore schedule-II property is ancestral. The trial court further held that from Ex. P.3 it could be made out that the first defendant had been allotted landed property at Channapura village. In this view the evidence given by PW-1 that the first defendant was getting income from the ancestral landed properties at the village could be believed. The plaintiffs were also employed and they were also contributing their income to the family headed by the first defendant. For all these reasons acquisition of items no. I, III and VI must have been from the joint family income.

5. With regard to sale of schedule-Ill property to the third defendant, the trial court has held that the third defendant did not contest the claim of the plaintiffs. The burden was on her to plead and prove that the first defendant sol