The burden of proof lies on the claimant to establish joint family property, and failure to evaluate evidence can render a trial court's judgment unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

(K. MANMADHA RAO, J.)

The Defendant No.1 is before this Court, assailing the legality and correctness of the Judgment and Decree dated 11.11.2024 passed in O.S.No.2188/2015 on the file of the Court of LXXV Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge, (CCH.76) at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial Court' for short), whereby the suit filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff for declaration of 1/7^th share in the suit schedule properties (A to E) and for consequential reliefs, was partly decreed.

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

The Brief facts of the case are as follows :

3. The plaintiff/B.R.Lokanath who claims to be the son of one Late Sri.C. Ramaiah had sought partition and separate possession of one half (1/7^th) share in ‘A, B, C, D’ and ‘E’ schedule properties. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff and defendants No.1, 3 and 6 are the sons and defendants No.2, 4 and 5 are the daughters of Late Sri.C. Ramaiah and Smt. B. Byramma and that the suit schedule property is the ancestral joint family property of the plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6.

4. The plaintiff/B.R. Lokanath, instituted O.S.No.2188/2015 before the trial court seeking partition and separate possession of 1/7^th share in ‘A’ to ‘E’ Schedule properties. The suit was contested by defendants No.1, 4, and 6 (including the appellants herein) through a joint written statement, while defendant No.3 filed a separate statement. The defendants contended that a prior suit, O.S.No.3714/1995, was instituted by defendants No.1, 5, 6, and their mother Smt. Byramma for partition of 1/8^th share each in the C-Schedule property, which was the absolute property of the deceased father of the plaintiff and defendants. The defendants No.1,5,6 and their mother were placed exparte. The B.R.Lokanath was a party to the earlier suit which culminated in a decree on 31.03.1998, as evidenced by Exhibits P9 and P10.

5. Despite the earlier decree, plaintiff filed O.S.No.2188/2015, 17 years later, again including the ‘C’ Schedule property and further seeking partition of the alleged absolute properties of defendants No.1, 3, and 6. It was contended that the ‘E’ Schedule properties were non-existent and that the ‘D’ Schedule properties were the absolute properties of the mother which was gifted to defendant No.6. The defendants contended that the present suit was barred by limitation and res judicata, and was therefore not maintainable. However, the trial court erroneously entertained and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff contrary to the pleadings and evidence on record. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendant No.1 has preferred the present appeal.

6. The trial Court based on the pleadings, framed the following issues for its consideration:

" 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, plaint 'A' to 'E' schedule properties are ancestral joint family properties of him and D.1 to 6?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the judgment and decree dated: 31.03.1998 passed in O.S.No.3714/1995, proceedings in FDP No.15/2000 and 18.11.2004 are all illegal, void and not binding on him?

3. Whether the 1^st defendant proves that, plaint schedule property is his self acquired 'A' schedule property and that D.3 proves that, plaint 'B' schedule property is his self acquired property?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/7th share in the plaint 'A' schedule property?

5. What order or decree?

RECASTED ISSUE NO.4

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/7th share in the plaint 'A' to 'E' schedule properties?

7. The trial Court f