The burden of proof lies with plaintiffs to demonstrate ownership rights, and valid alienation of property by family members for legal necessity cannot be contested without sufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

V. SRISHANANDA, J.

Heard Sri. T.B. Sandesh, learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents.

2. The plaintiffs are the appellants, who were unsuccessful in getting the decree of partition and separate possession in respect of the immovable property bearing Sy.No.17/2, belonging to the joint family.

3. The brief facts in nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

A suit came to be filed for partition and separate possession of the following immovable property hereinafter referred as suit schedule property for convenience:

“Agricultural land bearing Sy.No.17/2 measuring 4 acres 24 guntas out of which kharab is 14 guntas and Hiduvali land measuring 4 acres 10 guntas, situated at Hanumanthpura Village, Nidige Hobli, Shivamogga Taluk, which is bounded by:

East : Sy.No.18/1, 2, 3

West : Tunga Channel

North : Sy.No.25 South: Road.”

3.1 According to the plaint averments, suit schedule property is the ancestral property and defendant No.1 being the mother of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 6, without any family necessity sold the property in favour of defendant No.8, S.R. Srinivasa, through a registered Sale Deed dated 16.02.2006.

3.2 In turn, the said Srinivasa sold the property in favour of defendant No.7. Without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and other legal heirs of Late Rangappa, who is the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 6 and husband of defendant No.1.

3.3 It is also contended that defendant No.1 had no authority to alienate the suit property in favour of defendant Nos.7 and 8. As a result, the plaintiff being the daughter and defendants Nos.2 to 6 being other legal representatives of Rangappa, entitled for share in the suit schedule property. 4. During the pendency of the suit, defendant Nos.3 to 6 got transposed themselves as plaintiffs and hence, original defendant Nos.7 and 8 were made as defendant Nos.3 and 4.

5. Upon receipt of suit summons, the defendants entered appearance and it is the original defendant Nos.7 and 8, who filed their written statement, denying the plaint averments in toto.

5.1 Defendant Nos.3 to 6 filed a written statement making a counter claim that they are also entitled for the share in the suit schedule property.

5.2 Pertinently, defendant No.1 being the mother of the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 did not choose to file any written statement.

6. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, learned Trial Judge raised necessary issues and after recording the oral and documentary evidence placed by the parties, heard the arguments of the parties and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to defendant No.3.

7. Against the judgment of the Trial Court, original plaintiff, Saraswathi filed R.A.No.21/2018 and transposed plaintiffs, namely Ratnamma, Jayamma, Shanthamma and Sharadamma, who were original defendant Nos.3 to 6 before the Trial Court, filed R.A.No.19/2018.

8. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, after securing the records, heard the arguments of the parties and by considered judgment dated 23.09.2020 recorded a finding in negative only on issue No.3 raised by the Trial Court with regard to insufficiency of the court fee, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff as well as original defendants Nos.3 to 6 and confirmed the dismissal of the suit and payment of cost payable to defendant No.3 in a sum of Rs.5,000/-.

9. Being further aggrieved by the same, the original plaintiff, Saraswathi has filed the present appeal, including defendant Nos.3 to 6, who were subsequently transposed as plaintiffs, against their mother and Harisha, who is th