Joint family properties are established through contributions from family income, and the validity of a gift deed in such cases necessitates consent from all joint owners.

JUDGMENT :

ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE, J.

This appeal is filed against the concurrent finding in a suit for partition and separate possession. Hence, defendants No.1, 3 and 4 are before this Court.

2. This appeal was admitted on 13.10.2022 to answer the following substantial question of law.

Whether the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are justified in holding that the suit scheduled properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and thereby justified in granting relief of partition in favour of the plaintiffs?

3. Certain facts are admitted.

3.1 The suit is filed by four sisters against defendant No.1, their father, defendants No.2 and 3, their sisters and defendant No.4, the son of defendant No.2. Defendant No.5 is said to be the brother of defendant No.1.

3.2 The suit is filed on the premise that the suit properties are joint family properties acquired out of the joint family income and the plaintiffs assisted their father i.e., defendant No.1 purchase the properties. Accordingly, suit is filed claiming partition on the premise that the plaintiffs are also having equal share along with defendant No.1.

3.3 The plaintiffs have also referred to the Gift Deed said to have been executed by defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.4. However, no declaration is sought in respect of the alleged Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.4.

4. Defendants No.1, 4 and 5 contested the suit. Defendant No.1 took a stand that the properties are the self- acquired properties Defendants No.1 and 4 also referred to the registered sale deeds dated 18.02.1963, 01.04.1963 and 01.02.1972 to contend that the properties covered under those deeds are the self-acquired properties of defendant No.1.

5. As far as item No.4 property, it is urged that the said property is acquired by defendant No.1 by way of Darkast on 27.09.1994. Item No.5 bearing Sy.No.23 is stated be granted to defendant No.1 in the year 1974-1975. In so far as item No.6 property is concerned, it is stated be purchased by defendant No.1 on 22.01.1974.

6. Based on these contentions, defendants No.1 and 4 prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. The Trial Court framed five issues.

8. First issue is whether the plaintiffs establish that the suit properties are the joint family ancestral properties acquired in the name of defendant No.1.

9. The second issue is relating to the Gift Deed in favour of defendant No.4 executed by defendant No.1.

10. The Trial Court came to a conclusion that the suit properties are the joint family properties and granted a decree for partition and separate possession of 1/7^th share.

11. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, defendants No.1 to 4 filed Regular Appeal. The appeal was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the Second Appeal by defendants No.1, 3 and 4.

12. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants would raise the following contentions:

(a) Plaint averments do not disclose that the properties are the ancestral properties in the hands of defendant No.1. It is stated that the plaintiffs assisted defendant No.1 to purchase the property by contributing their income. No evidence is placed before the Court to show that the plaintiffs contributed their income to purchase the property in the name of defendant No.1. When the properties were purchased, some of the plaintiffs were minors and one of the plaintiffs was not even born.

(b) It is not pleaded that defendant No.1 had ancestral property or income from the ancestral property which formed nucleus to purchase the properties in his name. The presumption under