Proper application of legal principles related to joint family properties, ancestral properties, and joint business is essential for determining entitlement to partition and allotment.

N.M. Jamdar, J.

By this Appeal, the original Defendant nos.1 and 2 have challenged the judgment and decree dated 26 July 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasco, in Special Civil Suit No.20/2005.

2. The Respondent nos.1 to 4 are the original Plaintiffs. The Defendant nos.10 and 11 are purchasers of the properties. The other Defendants are the siblings of the Plaintiff.

3. The Respondent no.1, the Plaintiff, filed a Special Civil Suit seeking partition of various properties. The parents of the Plaintiff and the Defendants hailed from Karnataka and settled in Goa during the Portuguese regime. It is an admitted position that the parties are governed by Hindu Law and not by the law prevalent in Goa.

4. Narayan Pai was the father of the Plaintiff and the Defendants. He had four sons and seven daughters. Narayan expired on 11 November 1974. The mother of the Plaintiff and the Defendants expired in the year 1993. One of the sisters also expired.

5. According to the Plaintiff, their parents had acquired some properties in Goa. These properties are situated at Mundvel Vaddem, Vasco-da-Gama, Zuarinagar, Sancoale, Ella, Dongri, Tiswadi, Vaddem Vaso-da-Gama and certain flats situated at Margao and two shops at Vasco. According to the Plaintiff, there were three businesses being jointly family businesses that is: M/s Saraswati Timber and Tiles Depot at Vaddem; M/s Narayan Road Lines and M/s Canara Timbers at Vasco. It is the case of the Plaintiff that the Narayan had set up the family business and had also purchased a plot at Mundvel are constructed residential houses, commonly known as Chawl, and the rooms were rented. It was also the case of the Plaintiff that after the death of Narayan, all brothers jointly purchased another plot at Vasco and they were functioning as one family and the business was being managed by all brothers. The Plaintiff also stated that the Appellant-Defendant no.1 purchased plots at Old Goa and at the Dabolim. According to the Plaintiff, a flat was purchased at Margao and these purchases were from the joint family funds. The Plaintiff stated that all the properties were joint family properties, and the Plaintiff and Defendants were always constituted a joint Hindu family and they were governed by the provisions of Hindu law, as applicable. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant no.1 started acting against the interest of the family and sought to appropriate himself the joint family property.

Therefore, the shares in the various assets of the joint family needed to be determined. The Plaintiff contended that the Plaintiffs and Defendants were entitled to 1/10th share in the properties and 1/3rd share in the joint family business. It was also contended that on 18 June 1989 an agreement was executed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants wherein the parties decided for separate share and this agreement constituted a family settlement. The Plaintiff also contended that the Defendants sought to sell certain properties to the Defendant nos.10 and 11 and said Sale Deed could not have been executed since the properties were joint family properties. The Plaintiff prayed for partition of the joint family properties and the businesses. They also prayed for cancellation of the agreement executed by the Appellants with the defendant nos.10 and 11 and that they be directed to deposit the consideration of Rs. 7,75,000/- received. The Plaintiff in the alternative prayed that the agreement of settlement dated 18 June 1989 be enforced.

6. The Appellants filed their Written Statement and contested the suit. The Appellants contended that there was no joint family and also no joint family property. The Appellants contended that various properties mentioned in the plaint are in the name of the Appellants and the argument is that they were purchased in his name is not tenable, in view of the provisions of the Benami Transactions Act, 1988. The Appellants contended that the properties were purchased by the