Daughters are entitled to equal shares in joint family property despite claims of prior sales for marriage expenses.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court. The suit was filed for the relief of partition and separate possession by one of the daughters and another daughter remained exparte before both the Courts. The claim made in the suit is that the suit schedule property belongs to her father and mother by name Hulugappa and Durgamma and along with her brother Sridhara, constituted a Hindu undivided joint family consisting of joint family suit schedule property and after the death of her parents, she is also entitled for a share in the suit schedule property. The defendants appeared and filed the written statement contending the Hulugappa in order to perform the marriage of plaintiff and defendant No.2, sold 3.18 acres of land in Sy.No.23 of Hosakote village in favour of the purchaser in the year 1992 for meager sale consideration of Rs.12,000/- and also borrowed hand loan for the marriage expenses and after his death, his son Sridhara repaid the loan out of his salary and hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit schedule property. The plaintiff in order to prove her case, examined herself as PW1 and got marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P5. The defendants in order to defend their claim, defendant No.1 examined herself as DW1 and two witnesses as DW2 and DW3 and got marked the documents at Ex.D1 to D10. The Trial Court having considered the case of the plaintiff and also the defendants and also on perusal of the material on record comes to the conclusion that the property belongs to their parents i.e., Hulugappa and Durgamma and also taken note of the evidence of DW2 which was not believed since DW2 has not at all stated that how much loan was borrowed by Hulugappa and what was the sale consideration and nothing has been discloses and also taken note of Section 91 and 92 of Indian Evidence Act it held that whenever a document is reduced in the form of writing then that document is alone is admissible in evidence and no other evidence can be given with respect to the contents of those documents and also discussed in detail that even if the property is sold for clearing the debt, then also it amounts to performance of an obligation and the same is sold for legal necessity and comes to the conclusion that the property belongs to the family and the very contention of the defendants that he had cleared the loan is not been proved and regarding claim is concerned with regard to 1/3^rd share in the suit schedule property, in detail discussed and comes to the conclusion that they are equally entitled for the share and decreed the suit granting 1/3^rd share to the plaintiff.

3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred in R.A.No.47/2022. The First Appellate Court having reconsidered the grounds urged in the appeal as well as both oral and documentary evidence placed on record formulated the point that whether the defendant No.1 proved that the other joint family properties were sold for meeting the marriage expenses of the plaintiff and defendant No.2, due to which, plaintiff and defendant No.2 have no right to claim share over the suit schedule property and whether it requires interference of the court. The First Appellate Court having reassessed the material on record with regard to 1/3^rd share is concerned, in paragraph 17, it is held that there is no dispute regarding relationship between the plaintiff and defendants a