The plaintiff failed to prove the joint nature of disputed properties, resulting in the dismissal of her appeal for partition.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

1. Heard the appellant counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents. This appeal is listed for admission.

2. The appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The present appellant is the plaintiff and as against the finding of Trial Court and Appellate Court in dismissal of the suit in respect of Item Nos.2, 4 and 5, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/6^th share in the suit schedule properties since the properties belong to the joint family. In total, the suit is filed for 5 items of the suit schedule properties. It is contended that during the lifetime of the propositus, Doddahanumanthappa, he had constituted a joint family along with his sons and daughters. He owned joint family properties which are the suit schedule properties. Doddahanumanthappa succeeded to the suit schedule properties from his ancestors and continued enjoying these properties along with his sons and daughters. Therefore, the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties.

4. On 21.06.2001, Doddahanumanthappa died intestate. His wife Durgamma also died on 03.08.2014, leaving behind their sons and daughters as their legal heirs and successors to the suit schedule properties. Thereafter, the sons and daughters continued to enjoy the suit schedule properties jointly. On 28.08.2020, the husband of the plaintiff Gopalappa died leaving behind the plaintiff as his only legal heir. Hence, while the plaintiff and defendants remain in joint possession of the suit schedule properties, the defendants have begun to mismanage the properties and have failed to partition the same despite the demand of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, being a widow, has demanded that her 1/6^th share of the properties out of the suit schedule properties be divided and hand over. However, the defendants neglected her and did not come forward to give any share.

5. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant No.1 admitted the plaint paragraph Nos.2 and 3 but, denied the other averments and admitted the relationship between the parties and contends that the suit is not properly valued and also contends that Item Nos.1 and 3 of the suit schedule properties are the only properties available for division as they were left behind by Doddahanumanthappa and the Item Nos.2, 4 and 5 are the exclusive properties of the defendants and the same are acquired by the defendants out of their own labour and sweat.

6. Item No.2 of the suit schedule properties was a land belonging to one Koramara Thimmappa, which Durugamma had purchased on 23.12.1985 under the registered sale deed. She also executed a gift deed, gifting the property in favour of defendant No.1 and delivered the possession. Since then, defendant No.1 has been in possession of the property.

7. Item No.4 of the suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Sri Koramara Parasappa. Defendant No.5, Parvathamma, purchased it on 27.07.2000 for valuable consideration and defendant No.5 was put in possession of Item No.4.

8. Item No.5 of the suit schedule properties is the exclusive and absolute property of defendant No.3. Defendant No.3 and her husband had purchased it in the year 1993. Those are the exclusive properties of defendants and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief of partition in respect of those properties are concerned.

9. Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence, particularly taking note of the admission on the part of PW-1 in cross-examination regarding the avocation of defendants and also their income, the Court also categorically noted that no documents were