The burden of proof to establish joint family property lies with the plaintiffs, which remains unchanged even when defendants do not contest the suit.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J.

1. This appeal is by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in OS No.11/2018 is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Kalaghatagi [Hereinafter for short ’trial Court’] whereby the said suit filed by the appellants-plaintiffs against the respondents-defendants for partition and separate possession of their alleged share in the suit schedule immovable properties and for declaration and other reliefs came to be dismissed by the trial Court.

2. For the purpose of convenience, parties are referred to by their respective ranking before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

(a) The plaintiffs instituted the aforesaid suit inter alia contending that they are the daughters of one late Basappa Haliyal, who is said to have expired leaving behind the plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 and their sister Smt.Gangavva- defendant No.1 to succeed to his estate including the suit schedule properties.

(b) It is contended that the defendant No.2 is the husband of defendant No.1 and he did not have any right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule properties. It was further contended that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 took advantage of the situation and created a bogus documents behind the back of the plaintiffs and alienated the suit schedule properties comprising of three items of landed properties in favour of defendant Nos.3 to 13 by executing sale deeds which are not binding upon the shares of the plaintiffs who instituted the aforesaid suit for partition, declaration and other reliefs in relation to the suit schedule properties.

(c) In the matter of record that the suit schedule properties comprised of three items of landed properties viz., a) Sy.No.184/1A measuring 3 acres 15 guntas b) Sy.No.184/1B measuring 2 acres c) Sy.No.184/2 measuring 3 acres 17 guntas While item No.2 was sold by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant Nos.5 to 13, item No. 3 was sold by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 who in turn sold the same in favour of defendant No.4. Item No.1 continued to stand in the name of defendant No.2, while item Nos.2 and 3 were standing in the name of defendant Nos.4 to 13 at the time of institution of the suit.

4. Defendant Nos.3 and 4 entered appearance, but written statement was filed only on behalf of defendant No.4. The remaining defendants remained absent and were placed exparte.

5. The defendant No.4 inter alia contended that item No.3 of the suit schedule property was the self acquired property of defendant No.2, who in turn sold the same in favour of defendant No.3 vide registered sale deed dated 04.11.2010 and the defendant No.3 subsequently sold item No.3 in favour of defendant No.4 vide registered sale deed dated 07.07.2011. It was therefore contended that the item No.3 of the suit schedule property was not the joint family property of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 as falsely alleged by them and the suit in relation to this property was liable to be dismissed.

6. The defendant No.4 further contended that the sale deed dated 04.11.2010 executed by defendant No.2 in favour of defendant No.3 was also signed by the plaintiffs as consenting witnesses and the said sale deed being a registered document, the plaintiffs were estopped from putting forth of their claim in respect of item No.3 of the plaint schedule properties. It is therefore contended that, the suit of the plaintiffs was liable to be dismissed.

7. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed