Post-partition, a Hindu joint family ceases to exist and members become tenants in common, as evidenced by independent acquisitions and separate residences.

JUDGMENT :

H.P. SANDESH, J.

1. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

2. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

3. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court that plaintiff and defendant No.1 constituted Hindu Undivided Joint Family and also it is the contention that suit schedule properties are the ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff is entitled for a share in respect of Item No.1 to 10 properties. Defendant Nos.1 and 3 appeared and filed written statement contending that there was a family partition on 21.04.1989 and hence, the parties have lost the nature of jointness and the family properties by metes and bounds. Hence, there was no status of joint family as on the date of filing of the suit. It is contended that suit schedule properties have been purchased by defendant No.1 and some of the properties by defendant No.3 from their own independent income, thus, they have their self-acquired properties i.e., Item Nos.2, 3, 5 to 8.

4. The Trial Court having considered the pleadings of the parties, framed the Issues and Additional Issue and allowed the parties to lead their evidence. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, taken note of earlier partition of the year 1989 in paragraph 14. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the plaintiff that in the said partition, half share was allotted to the share of both plaintiff and defendant No.1 and hence, they continued to be joint till today. But defendant No.1 denies the issue and strongly contends that in the said family partition, properties were divided by metes and bounds and there was no jointness after the partition and defendant No.1 independently purchased certain properties. The Trial Court having considered the recital of the said document and also the oral and documentary evidence, in paragraph 16 comes to the conclusion that if we carefully peruse the above proposition of law regarding partition and Mitakshara Law, once there is a severance of joint family, if the joint family members intend to continue, they can continue only as tenants in common and there cannot be a partial partition between some of the family members. While affecting partition, it is true that same may be effected partially in respect of properties and joint family members can retain their right to effect partition in respect of some other properties. The Trial Court also taken note of Ex.P8- partition deed and held that Ex.P8 was effected by Sulalappa that is the father of the plaintiff along with his brother Venkatarayappa. When father effects partition, no doubt, partition will be full and complete and if there is any intention seeking for a partial partition, Sulalappa being a father and head of the family as a Kartha would have expressed his intention regarding effecting a partial partition and no provision under Hindu law provides a further to effect an incomplete partition between the members of the joint family. Once, partition is effected, it is presumed that the jointness is severed and the members of the joint family will become tenants in common if they continues to enjoy the family properties.

5. The Trial Court also taken note of the answer elicited from the mouth of PW1 in the cross-examination in paragraph 19 and extracting the admission, the Trial Court comes to the conclusion that these admissions are very clear that after the severance of joint family under Ex.P8 all the three