The principles of self-acquired versus joint family property were affirmed, establishing the burden of proof on those claiming joint ownership, and determining that mere possession does not suffice for joint claims.

JUDGMENT :

Mr. Anant Ramanath Hegde, J. - Preliminary decree for partition and separate possession is granted holding that plaintiffs No.1 to 5 have 1/6th share each in the suit schedule properties and a decree is also passed against defendant No.3 to render the accounts of Item No.13 property from the year 1994. Cost of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiffs.

2. The First appellate Court confirmed the said judgment and decree, by dismissing in R.A.No.66/2009 on the file of Fast Track Court at Jamkhandi filed by defendants No.1 to 13. The cross-appeal No.99/2009 filed by defendants No.15 and 16 the purchasers of Item No.14 property is also dismissed. Hence, there are two regular second appeals before this Court. RSA No.5898/2010 is by the defendants No.1 to 13 and RSA No.5048/2011 is by defendants No.15 and 16.

3. Both these appeals were admitted on 07.06.2016 to consider the following substantial questions of law:

"Whether the judgment and decree passed by the lower Appellate Court is in conformity with Order 41, Rule 30 of Code of Civil Procedure?"

4. The genealogy of the parties is admitted which is as under:

5. Brief facts:

5.1 One Shivappa Hoskoti was the propositus. His first wife Basalingawwa died in 1946. Shivappa Hoskoti had four sons from first wife namely, Gangappa, Irappa, Shrimantapp and Chandrashekhar who are defendants No.1 to 4 in the suit.

5.2 After the demise of the first wife the propositus married second wife Bourawwa. Second wife died on 15.12.1994. From the second wife the propositus Shivappa Hoskoti had four sons namely, Balappa, Basavaraj, Ningappa and Ramesh and four daughters namely, Kalawwa, Mahadevi, Suggaladevi and Kasturi. These children from second wife are arrayed as defendants No.5 to 12. The propositus died in 1980.

5.3 The suit is filed by wife and children of elder son from second wife on the premise that all the properties are ancestral properties and there is no partition in the family after the death of the propositus. Thus, the plaintiffs claimed 1/6th share in the suit schedule properties. The suit is resisted by defendants No.2 to 4 by filing one set of written statement. The suit is also resisted by legal representatives of defendant No.1 Additional written statement is also filed pursuant to the amended plaint.

5.4 Defendant No.5 filed a separate written statement and defendants No.6 to 12 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.5. Defendants No.15 and 16 contested the suit in respect of Item No.13 property which is a petrol bunk. Defendants No.13 and 14 contested the suit in respect of Sy.No.136 measuring 6 acres of land on the premise that they have purchased the property.

5.5 Defendants No.13 and 14 have not filed any appeal against the aforementioned judgment and decree. Defendants No.1 to 12 have contested the case on the premise that there is already a previous partition in the family. The defendants No.15 and 16 contested the case on the premise that the property purchased by them namely petrol bunk is the self-acquired property of their vendors.

5.6 The trial Court rejected the contention of the defendants and has held that previous partition is not established. In the appeal filed by defendants No.1 to 13 and also in the cross-objection filed by defendants No.15 and 16, the First Appellate Court by dismissing the appeal as well as the cross-objection has accepted the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that the petrol bunk i.e. Item No.13 property purchased by defendants No.15 and 16 under registered sale deed of the year 1998 from defendants No.3 and 4 cannot be a