Joint family properties are to be shared equally among heirs, with issues of loans and expenses addressed in final decree proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

This appeal by the defendants in O.S. 95/2015 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.06.2019 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mudhol[Hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court” for short] whereby, the said suit filed by the respondents - plaintiffs against the appellants - defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties was decreed by the Trial Court in favour of the respondents against the appellants.

2. The appellants are the brother and sister of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, all of them being the children of Late Gurupadappa @ Gurappa Basappa Navi and Late Neelawwa. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute.

3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their respective ranks before the Trial Court.

4. The plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule properties comprising of the following 4 items of immovable properties.

“Description of the suit properties

A. Landed Properties i. R.S.No.214/1 measuring 08Acre-05 Guntas assessed at Rs. 22=35Ps of Jaliber village in Mudhol Taluka.

ii. R.S.No.25/3 measuring 03Acre-08Guntas assessed at Rs. 08-35 Ps of Uttur village in Mudhol Taluka.

iii. R.S.No.6/7 measuring 02Acres-00GuntasAssessed at Rs. 01=38Ps of Ranjanagi village B. House property.

iv. House bearing Uttur Panchayat No.293 standing in the name of Gurupadappa @ Gurappa Basappa Navi situated within the limits of Uttur village.

(Herein after referred to as suit properties)

5. According to the plaintiffs, all the suit schedule properties are Hindu undivided / joint family properties, in which they are entitled to 1/4^th share each and since the defendants did not comply with the request / demand of the plaintiffs to effect partition/division and to put the plaintiffs in separate possession of their share in the suit schedule properties, the plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit seeking partition and other reliefs.

6. The defendants filed their written statement contesting the suit, inter alia contending that apart from the fact that defendant No.1 had raised huge loan towards marriage expenses of plaintiffs and defendant No.2, there were other liabilities in excess of Rs.10,00,000/- with private persons within the knowledge of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2. It was also contended that defendant No.1 had invested huge amounts of money to the tune of Rs. 25,00,000/- for developing the suit schedule properties, which was being discharged by defendant No.1 alone and the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 had not contributed any money towards either their marriage expenses or towards discharge of the loan incurred on the suit schedule properties or for their development and as such the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 would not be entitled to claim any share in the suit schedule properties and the suit was liable to be dismissed.

7. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether plaintiff prove themselves and defendants are joint family members and suit schedule properties are in joint possession and enjoyment?

2. Whether the defendants proves that the deceased Gurupadappa @ Gurappa has borrowed Rs.10,00,000/- loan more for performing than the marriage of his daughters and the defendant No.1 has invested a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for developing the lands?

3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief sought?

4. What order or decree?”

8. Plaintiff No.2 examined herself as PW1 and E