Properties registered in individual names may still be classified as joint family properties if purchased from joint family income, and the defendant bears the burden to prove otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

M.G.S. Kamal, J.

1. This appeal is filed by plaintiff No.1, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15^th October 2015 passed in R.A. No.110 of 2014 on the file of the I- Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad Sitting at Hubballi (for short “the First Appellate Court”). By the said judgment, the First Appellate Court, while allowing the appeal filed by defendant No.6, set aside the judgment and decree dated 30^th August 2014 passed in O.S. No.156 of 2009 on the file of the II-Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi (for short “the trial Court”), in respect of item Nos.1, 2, 4, 10 and 13, by holding that the said properties are self- acquired properties of defendant No.6, and confirmed the said judgment with respect to the remaining suit properties.

2. Brief facts of the case are that: the plaintiffs, defendant Nos.3 to 6, defendant Nos.1(a) and 1(b) and one late Ganapati Solanke are the children of the deceased defendant No.1. Defendant No.7 is the wife and defendant Nos. 2, 8 to 10 are the children of the aforesaid late Ganapati Solanke. That plaintiffs and defendants constituted a Hindu Undivided Joint Family and the suit properties are their joint family properties. Defendant No.1 was the Karta of the family and he purchased the suit properties out of the income derived from the joint family properties in the names of the members of the joint family, for and on behalf of the joint family. No one has exclusive ownership or right over the suit properties. Defendant Nos.2 to 6 are trying to alienate the suit properties by taking undue advantage of their names being reflected in the revenue records, thereby constraining the plaintiffs to file above suit seeking partition and separate possession of their share.

3. Defendant No.1, the father of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.3 to 6, filed written statement admitting the averments made in the plaint. Defendant Nos.3 to 5 adopted the written statement filed by defendant No.1.

4. Defendant No.6 filed a separate written statement, which was adopted by defendant Nos.2 and 4. In his written statement, defendant No.6 contended that the properties bearing Block Nos.106/1, 44/1B, 123/3 and VPC Nos.7 and 64, which are suit item Nos.1, 2, 4, 10 and 13 respectively are not the joint family properties, but are his self acquired properties. He claimed to have purchased these properties out of his own income derived from the transport business and that the plaintiffs and other defendants have no manner of rights in these properties. Hence, he sought dismissal of the suit to the extent of the said items of suit properties.

5. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration:

1) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they and defendants are in joint activity of the family i.e., looking after the agriculture and business of the family and residing as a joint family as contended in para 4 of their plaint?

2) Whether they further prove that suit properties were purchased by defendant No.1 in the name of different persons of the family out of joint family income earned by all the members of the family?

3) Whether defendant No.4 proves that the plaintiffs have not paid proper court fee?

4) Whether defendant No.6 proves that suit properties bearing block No.106/2 measuring 1 acre 29 guntas, block No.44/1B 1 acre 21 guntas, survey No.123/3 2 acres 37 guntas VPC No.7 and 64 are his self acquired properties?

5) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed in the suit?

6) W