JUDGMENT :

This second appeal is preferred by the defendant in O.S No.765/2007 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Tumakuru whereby suit of the plaintiff came to be decreed, and aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed RA No.16/2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru whereby the First Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 30.11.2019 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 03.02.2015 in O.S No.765/2007 passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed second appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties in this appeal are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The suit is filed by the plaintiff for relief of declaration in respect of suit schedule property and claiming right in respect of suit schedule property based on the registered sale deed dated 20.12.2000 executed by H.R.Subba Rao in favour of the plaintiff and pursuant to the same revenue records have been mutated in favour of the plaintiff, thus, exercising rights insofar as suit schedule property. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant has no right, title and interest insofar as suit schedule property is concerned and interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff has filed O.S No.765/2007 on the file of III Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Tumakuru. The defendant has entered appearance and filed detailed written statement denying the plaint averments. It is the case of the defendant that the plaintiff and defendant are brothers and his father Magadaiah had seven children and plaintiff was Karta of the joint family and thereby, property has been purchased/acquired out of the joint family nucleus and thereby suit deserves to be dismissed.

4. The trial Court after considering the pleadings on record has formulated the issues for its consideration. In order to prove the case, plaintiff got examined as PW1 and examined two more witnesses as PW2 and PW3 and also produced five documents and same were marked as Exs.P1 to P5. The defendant was examined as DW1 and he has also examined one witness as DW2 and got marked documents as per Exs.D1 to 17.

5. The trial Court after considering the material on record and oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties, by its judgment and decree dated 03.05.2015, decreed the suit of the plaintiff and thereby, ordered that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of suit schedule property and directed the defendant to vacate and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, defendant has preferred appeal in R.A No.16/2015 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru and the said appeal was resisted by the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court after re-appreciating the material on record, by its judgment and decree dated 30.11.2019 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Courts below, the defendant has preferred this appeal.

6. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is the submission of Sri.Avin Tippanna, learned counsel for the appellant that the schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff out of the family nucleus and therefore, the schedule property is the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant. He further contended that the trial Court has not framed proper issue insofar as burden of proof in respect of possession of suit schedule property and therefore, he contended that the both the Courts below have erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff.

7. Per contra, Sri.Umakanth, learned counsel for respondent justifies the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

8. I have perused the finding recorded by the Courts below as well as submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The perusal of th