The distinction between joint family property and self-acquired property is critical in partition suits, and registered sale deeds can effectively rebut claims based on revenue record entries.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dtd. 29/11/2021 passed in O.S.No.72/2019 by the Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Hassan (hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court' for short) whereby the said suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff against the appellants-defendants No.3 and 5 and respondents No.2 to 5 - defendants No.1, 2, 4 and 6 for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties was decreed in part, thereby declaring that the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6 were entitled to 1/7th share in item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff in respect of item No.1 of the plaint schedule properties.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellants-defendant Nos.3 and 5 and learned Counsel for the respondent No.1-plaintiff and respondents No.2 to 5 - defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, and 6.

3. The material on record discloses that respondent No.1- plaintiff is the daughter of respondent No.2-defendant No.1, Sri Dyavegowda, while the appellants-defendant Nos.3 and 5 and respondents No.3 to 5 - defendant Nos.2, 4 and 6 are the remaining daughters of respondent No.2-defendant No.1.

4. The respondent No.1-plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit seeking partition of three items of suit schedule properties inter alia contending that the same are ancestral and joint family properties. Defendant No.1 - Dyavegowda and defendant No.6-Shashikala filed a common written statement admitting the relationship between the parties and also admitting that item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties were joint family properties. They however contended that item No.1 of the suit schedule properties was separate and self-acquired property of defendant No.1 who acquired the same under a registered sale deed dtd. 28/11/1968. It was therefore contended that while the suit can be decreed in respect of item Nos.2 and 3, the suit in relation to item No.1 was liable to be dismissed.

5. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 filed a common separate written statement inter alia denying the various allegations and claim made by the plaintiff. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 also did not accept the contention of the plaintiff that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties and sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. Based on the aforesaid pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following:

ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of herself and defendants?

2. Whether the plaintiff has share in the suit properties? If so, to what extent?

3. Whether the defendant No.1 proves that item No.1 property is his self-acquired property?

4. What order or decree?

7. The plaintiff examined herself as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. Defendant No.1 examined himself as DW1 and defendant No.6 as DW2 and Exs.D1 to D4 were marked. After hearing the parties, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that it was an undisputed fact that item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit schedule properties were joint family properties and were liable to be partitioned. However, in the light of the pleadings and evidence of the parties coupled with the registered sale deed in particular, the unimpeached, unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence of DWs.1 and 2 to the effect that item No.1 of the suit schedule properties was a separate and self-acquired property of defendant No.1, the Trial Court proceeded to dismiss the suit insofar as item No.1 was concerned. In this context, it is relevant to state that the plaintiff has not filed a separate appeal/cross-objection/crossappeal as against dismissal of the suit in respect of item No.1 of the suit schedule properties. However, the present appeal is preferred by defendants No.3 and 5 inter alia contending that item No.1 of the suit schedule properties was also a joint family property and the same deserves to be pa