A party claiming self-acquisition of property within a joint family must provide substantial evidence; failure to do so, combined with existing partition evidence, undermines their claims.

JUDGMENT :

J.M.KHAZI, J.

In this Regular First Appeal, defendant Nos.1 to 5 have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court granting relief of partition and separate possession of 1/5^th share to the plaintiff in suit schedule properties.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court.

3. Plaintiff filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of 1/5^th share in suit schedule properties consisting of lands in Sy.Nos.261/1 measuring 16 acres 37 guntas and Sy.No.261/2 measuring 19 acres 18 guntas and 4 residential houses of Yadrami Village.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he and defendants constitute a Hindu joint family and suit schedule properties are their ancestral and joint family properties. Parties to the suit are residing separately due to the differences of opinion between the women folk. About 17 years back he has purchased land in Sy.No.425 measuring 12 acres as his self acquired property. Recently, he came to know that defendants have concocted a bogus partition deed dated 29.05.2017 among themselves and trying to mutate their names on the basis of illegal partition and hence the suit.

5. Defendants admit the blood relationship between the parties i.e, plaintiff, defendant No.1, the husband of defendant No.2 and defendant Nos.5 and 2 are the children of Siddappa. They also admit that the suit properties were their ancestral and joint family properties. In addition, Sy.No.425 measuring 12 acres and Sy.No.156, measuring 17 acres 36 guntas purchased in the name of defendant Nos.5 and 6 were also ancestral and joint family properties. A partition has taken place between them wherein Sy.No.425 is allotted to the share of plaintiff, Sy.No.261 is divided between defendant No.1 and Hanumanthraya and Sy.No.156 is allotted to the share of defendant Nos.5 and 6. Out of the four residential houses, plaintiff, defendant No.1 and the wife and children of Hanumanthraya are residing in one house each. They have disputed that Sy.No.425 is the self acquired property of plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the suit.

6. Though initially, defendant Nos.5 and 6 were not arraigned as parties, later they are impleaded.

7. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed necessary issues.

8. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and two witnesses as PWs-2 and 3. He got marked Exs.P1 to 20.

9. On the other hand, defendant Nos.1 and 5 are examined as DWs-1 and 2. Defendants have got examined two witnesses as DWs-3 and 4. They have relied upon Exs.D1 to 25.

10. The trial Court accepted the case of the plaintiff and granted 1/5^th share in the suit properties.

11. Aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1 to 5 have filed this appeal, contending that the trial Court has not even looked into the testimony of PWs-1 to 3 and as such failed to appreciate the admissions given by them. Their evidence clearly prove that partition has taken place about 30 years back and since then plaintiff is enjoying land in Sy.No.425, measuring 12 acres fallen to his share. The said land was acquired through the joint family nucleus, but the same was registered in the name of plaintiff. Plaintiff never had any separate income of his own. Sy.No.261, which is item No.1 of suit schedule property is divided between the other two brothers. The evidence also proved that the sons of Siddappa Mullolli are allotted one house each and they are enjoying the same separately. Land in Sy.No.156, measuring 17 acres 36 guntas is also acquired through the joint family nucleus, but in the name of defendant Nos.5 and 6 and it was allotted to their share. As