A coparcener in a joint family is entitled to an equal share in ancestral properties, and mere changes in revenue records do not confer absolute title.

JUDGMENT :

R. NATARAJ, J.

1. The defendants in O.S. No.86/2016 on file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol, have filed this Regular First Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2019 passed therein, by which the suit was decreed and it was declared that the plaintiff was entitled to 1/5^th share in the suit schedule properties.

2. For the sake of convenience and easy understanding, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The suit in O.S. No.86/2016 was filed for partition and separate possession of plaintiff’s half share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff claimed that she and the defendants were siblings and children of Sri. Parappa and Smt. Basavva. She claimed that her father Parappa died on 18.12.2007 and her mother died on 18.11.2010. She claimed that she and the defendants were members of the joint family which possessed suit items No.1 to 5. She claimed that the suit properties fell to the share of Parappa at a partition between him and his brothers and sisters. In so far as the suit item No.6 was concerned, she claimed that it was purchased by Sri.Parappa from out of the income derived from the properties at suit items No.1 to 5. Therefore, she contended that all the suit properties were ancestral and joint family properties. She claimed that the name of defendant No.1 was appearing in the revenue records and therefore, taking advantage of it, he was denying half share of the plaintiff in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff was, therefore, advised to file a suit for partition.

4. Defendant No.1 contested the suit denying the claim of the plaintiff. He claimed that the suit properties were the self-acquisition of Parappa and that he transferred the land bearing R.S. No.280/2 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas to his name which was certified in M.R. No.16315. Therefore, he claimed that he was the sole and absolute owner of the said property. He claimed that this transfer was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff. He claimed that his father had purchased lands bearing R.S. No.187/2A, 187/3B, 187/4D, 187/5D and 189/1A and later, out of his own will and wish, transferred the said properties in the name of defendant No.1 on 16.11.2007 which was certified by revenue authorities in M.R. No.635/2007-08. He claimed that the plaintiff was aware of all these transactions and that she never objected for the same. He contended that his father died on 18.02.2008 and even before his death, all his self-acquired properties were transferred to his name and therefore, the plaintiff had no right, title or interest to question the transfer or claim that the transfer did not bind her. In addition, he claimed that at the time of marriage of the plaintiff, substantial sums of money were expended and sufficient gold ornaments were given to her.

5. The other defendants were placed ex parte.

6. Based on these contentions, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether plaintiff proves that, herself and defendants are the member of the joint family and the suit schedule properties are their joint family properties?

2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for relief sought for?

3. What Order or Decree?

The plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and she marked Exs.P.1 to P.8. Plaintiff examined two witnesses as P.Ws.2 and 3. Defendant No.1 was examined as D.W.1 and he marked Exs.D.1 to D.3. Defendant No.1 examined a witness as D.W.2.

7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that, by looking into the evidence adduced by the parties, the father of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 did not possess any ance