The presumption of a joint family exists unless proven otherwise; the burden rests on the party claiming a prior partition.

JUDGMENT :

J.M.KHAZI, J.

In these two Regular First Appeals, plaintiffs in O.S.No.130/2014, who are defendants in O.S.No.193/2014 have challenged the dismissal of their suit filed for partition and separate possession of half share in the suit schedule properties and grant of decree for relief of permanent injunction against them.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court, in O.S.No.130/2014.

3. One Basanna @ Basanagouda and Ramana Gowda were true brothers. Plaintiff are respectively the daughter and wife of Basanna @ Basanagouda. Defendant No.3 is the wife, defendant Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and Devareddy Meti are the children of Ramanagowda. Defendant No.6 is the wife and defendant No.7 is the Son of Devareddy Meti. Plaintiffs and defendants constitute a Hindu joint family and suit schedule properties are their ancestral and joint family properties. Both Basanna @ Basanagouda and Ramanagouda are no more. Devareddy Meti also died in 2006. Plaintiffs are having half share in the suit schedule properties. Of late they could not continue to live jointly and therefore plaintiffs demanded their share, but defendants flatly refused and hence the suit.

4. Defendants appeared through counsel and filed written statement, admitting the relationship between the parties. However, they have denied that plaintiffs and defendants constitute a joint family and suit properties are their joint family properties. They have specifically pleaded that during 1954–55, partition has taken place between Basanna @ Basanagouda and Ramanagouda.

5. In the said partition in Sy.No.127/A, 11 acres 35 guntas, in Sy.No.187/A, 13 acres 35 guntas, in Sy.No.186/A, 6 acres 30 guntas and in Sy.No.202, 5 acres 10 guntas fell to the share of Basanna @ Basanagouda.

6. Similarly in the said partition in Sy.No.127/A, 11 acres 36 guntas, in Sy.No.187/A, 11 acres 39 guntas, in Sy.No.186/A, 6 acres 34 guntas and in lieu of land in Sy.No.202, the family residential house fell to the share of Ramanagouda.

7. Since from the time of partition, plaintiffs and defendants got mutated migrated properties fallen to their share and are living separately. In fact, they have borrowed loan on the basis of the properties fallen to their share and dealt with them independently. Plaintiff No.2 has sold land in Sy.No.187/A to an extent of 3 acres 10 guntas to one Palayya. Out of love and affection, plaintiff No.2 has relinquished her right over Sy.No.187/A measuring 10 acres 25 guntas in favour of defendant No.1 and since then he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. In 1982–83, Ramanagouda sold 3 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.187/A through registered sale deed. After the said sale, defendant Nos.1 to 7 are joint owners and possessor of 10 acres 29 guntas in Sy.No.187/A.

8. During the year 2000, Ramana Gowda has purchased 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.187/2 in the name of his wife, i.e, defendant No.3 Mahanthamma out of his self acquisition. House plot Nos.19 and 20 shown in serial No.6 of the plaint are purchased by Ramanagouda out of his self acquisition, in the name of defendant No.1 and Late Devareddy Meti. In fact, plaintiff No.1 is married in a very well to do family. However, they are high handed, preventing defendants from enjoying the properties fallen to their share and also acquired through their self acquisition and sought for dismissal of the suit.

9. Defendants filed O.S.No.193/2014 against the plaintiffs alleging illegal interference in respect of the properties, fallen to their share and also the properties acquired through self acquisition.

10. Of course, plaintiffs filed written