The courts upheld that prior partition negated the existence of a joint family, establishing the properties in question as self-acquired rather than ancestral.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

Heard learned counsel for appellant counsel and also learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.12 and 17.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the first Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the trial court in the suit which is filed for the relief of partition and separate possession, in detail leaded before the trial court that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 10 are relatives and suit schedule property are joint family properties in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 10 and also pleaded that registered gift deed dated 21.06.1984 executed by Tenkayala Papaiah in favour of defendant Nos.8 to 10 in respect of suit schedule property item Nos.2 and 3 is not binding on her. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the properties conveyed under the gift dated 21.06.1984 is also an ancestral properties and further contention that sale of properties shown under suit schedule 'B' in favour of defendant No.11 by defendant Nos.3 to 6 is not for the benefit of joint family and not for legal necessity. As such, the said alienation is not binding on the plaintiff. It is the contention of defendant No.2 that plaint schedule 'C' and schedule 'F', item No.2 properties are the self acquired properties of defendant No.2. Also it is the contention that the defendant Nos.8 and 9 that plaintiff has mentioned wrong boundaries to schedule 'C', 'F' and 'G' properties as alleged in their additional written statement. The trial court given an opportunity to both defendant and also the plaintiffs, in order to prove the case. The plaintiff herself got examined as PW1 and got marked document at Exs.P1 to P53. The defendants have also examined 5 witnesses as DW1 to DW5 and got marked document at Exs.D1 to D65. The trial court having considered the material with regard to relationship is concerned, answered the issue No.1 as affirmative and also answered issue Nos.6 and 7 as affirmative. Defendant No. 2 proved that plaint 'C' and 'F', item No.2 are self acquired properties of defendant No.2 and so also defendants proves that the suit is bad for misjoinder of properties and other issues answered as negative and dismissed the suit in coming to conclusion that no joint family is in existence and already there was a partition among the members of Papaiah and in turn, the very plaintiff had purchased the property under documents Exs.D1 to D3 from defendant Nos.3, 4 and 6. Hence, comes to a conclusion that when already there is a division among the sons of possession, the said order was challenged before the appellate court. The appellate court also having reassessed the material available on record and also in keeping the grounds urged in the first appeal, formulated the points as below;

1. Whether the plaintiff has proved that the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff & defendant Nos.1 to 10 & 12 in which she is having a share?

2. Whether the application filed by the plaintiff [appellant] under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 of CPC (I.A. No. V) seeking to implead proposed respondent Nos.18 to 22 in this Appeal deserves to be allowed?

3. Whether the applications filed by the plaintiff [appellant] under Order VI rule 17 of CPC (I.A. Nos. VI & VIII) deserve to be allowed?

4. Whether the applications filed by the plaintiff [appellant] - I.A. No. VII) & defendant No.5 [respondent No.5] – I.A. No.XI, both under Order XLI rule 27 of CPC, deserve to be allowed?

5. Whether the impugned Judgment & Decree of the Trial Court calls for any interference by this Court in exercise of appe