In joint family property disputes, a claimant asserting self-acquisition must provide substantial proof, while joint ancestral claims are upheld unless clearly disproven.

JUDGMENT :

(M.G.S. KAMAL, J.)

This appeal is by the defendant No.1 since deceased by his legal representatives aggrieved by the judgement and decree dated 26.11.2013 passed in OS No.116/2007 on the file of Civil Judge, Sankeshwar (for short ‘Trial Court’), by which the suit for partition and separate possession filed by the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 4 herein came to be partly decreed allotting certain shares to the parties in the suit schedule properties which is confirmed with the modification by the judgement and order dated 20.03.2021 passed in RA No.5/2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hukkeri, Itinerary Court at Sankeshwar (for short ‘First Appellate Court’).

2. The above suit in OS No.116/2007 is filed by the plaintiffs/respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein in respect of nine items of landed properties and three items of house properties situated at Honnihalli village of Hukkeri Taluk, contending that, the same are the joint family properties. That one Mallappa had two wives by name Sonabai and Shivabai. Plaintiffs and defendants are the legal heirs of said Mallappa. Plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 6 to 8 are the children of said Mallappa. The deceased Settewwa was the daughter of Mallappa. Defendant Nos.5A and 5B are the legal heirs of deceased Sattewwa. Defendant No.4 – Dhondibai is the wife of another son of Mallappa namely Mahadev. That the suit schedule properties are jointly cultivated by the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 4 as there is no partition. Plaintiffs filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of their 1/6^th share in the suit schedule properties.

3. Defendant No.1 filed written statement contending that the land bearing RS No.239 (item No.2) is not the ancestral property. That an extent of 3 acres 18 guntas out of 9 acres 13 guntas in RS No.239 was being cultivated by defendant No.1 as a tenant. The Land Tribunal, Hukkeri, had granted the said land exclusively to defendant No.1 on 17.03.1976. As such, the defendant No.1 has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land as absolute owner thereof the name of defendant No.1 alone has been entered into the revenue records in respect of the said land. It is further contended that, though remaining landed properties are the ancestral properties, there has been a partition between the plaintiffs and the defendants several years ago and accordingly, they are cultivating their respective lands separately, their names having been entered into revenue records accordingly. The defendant No.4 had given her share to defendant Nos.1 to 3 in a compromise that had taken place in O.S.No.188/1995, as such, she was not the necessary party to the proceedings, hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 have also filed written statement reiterating the contention of defendant No.1 that except land in RS No.239 other properties are ancestral properties as it was allotted to defendant No.1 exclusively.

5. Defendant No.1 has filed additional written statement contending that, the land in RS No.238 and land bearing Block No.114 (item Nos.8 and 9) are also not the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. The said properties are self acquired properties of defendant No.1. He purchased the property bearing RS No.238 measuring 30 guntas from one Smt. Kallawwa W/o. Babu Naik, Shivaji Laxman Naik and Ashok Ramu Naik on 19.04.2005 and land bearing Block No.114 measuring 31 guntas from one Maruti Krishna Khapale under deed of sale dated 25.06.1992 contending as above he sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. The Trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs