The burden of proof lies on the party asserting a legal status, and without sufficient evidence, claims regarding marital status cannot be upheld in court.

JUDGMENT

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.

The captioned second appeal is by the plaintiff questioning the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below wherein the plaintiff's suit seeking relief of partition and separate possession is dismissed by both the Courts by recording a finding that plaintiff has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of one Narayanappa @ Muniyappa.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

3. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The plaintiff has filed the present suit by contending that she is the legally wedded wife of one Narayanappa who is also known as Muniyappa. She has further claimed that in their wedlock, she is blessed with two sons and one daughter namely, Venkateshappa, Muniraju and one daughter by name Rathnamma. Plaintiff has further pleaded that defendant is the wife of second son Venkataramanappa. Plaintiff claims that her husband Narayanappa and Venkataramanappa are full brothers and they constitute undivided joint Hindu family. Plaintiff alleged in the plaint that after marriage plaintiff started residing with her husband at Jakkasandra village and plaintiff's father-in-law was the Kartha of the family and after his demise, her mother-in-law as the head of the family was managing the ancestral properties. Plaintiff has alleged that after demise of Narayannappa, she along with her children have inherited the ancestral properties and therefore, she is entitled for half share in the suit schedule properties. The present suit is filed alleging that defendant has sold some of the ancestral properties inspite of objection by the plaintiff and therefore, the present suit is filed seeking half share in the properties.

4. The defendant on receipt of summons tendered appearance and filed written statement and stoutly denied the entire averments made in the plaint.

5. The defendant at para 3 of the written statement stoutly denied the plaintiff's status as wife of Narayanappa. Defendant on the contrary claimed that the first son of Venkatamma namely Narayanappa died without marriage and therefore, disputed the status of plaintiff as wife of Narayanappa.

6. Plaintiff and defendant to substantiate their respective claims have let in oral and documentary evidence.

7. Plaintiff to substantiate her marriage with Narayanappa examined one witness as P.W.2 and relied on documentary evidence vide Exs.P1 to P10.

8. The defendant by way of rebuttal evidence has placed on record the voter's list and other documents to substantiate that plaintiff is not the legally wedded wife of Narayanappa, but on the contrary, she is the legally wedded wife of one Muniyappa.

9. The trial Court having examined the pleadings of the parties and having assessed the oral and documentary evidence answered Issue Nos.1 and 2 in the negative. While answering the same in the negative, the trial Court has held that plaintiff has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of one Narayanappa. While taking cognizance of the rebuttal evidence let in by the defendant vide Ex.D1, which is the voters list of Narasapura Panchayath and Belur village, the trial Court found that plaintiff's husband name is indicated as Muniyappa and the voters' list of children of plaintiff indicate that they are shown to be the children of one Muniyappa and not Narayanappa. The plaintiff's contention that her husband Narayanappa was also known as Muniyappa was not acceded by the trial Court. While examining Ex.D1, trial Court was of the view that if at all the plaintiff's husband was also known as Narayanappa the same would have been reflected in the Voter's list produced by the defendant by way of rebuttal evidence. During trial, plaintiff admitted that she does not have any other documents to support her claim that she is the legally wedded wife of Narayanappa. The trial Court referring to the rebuttal evidence also found that if plaintiff was really married to Narayanappa, who