The captioned Second Appeal is filed by the

unsuccessful defendant questioning the judgment and

decree of the Courts in decreeing the suit filed by the

plaintiff thereby allotting legitimate half share in the suit

schedule properties.

4

2. The plaintiff, who is an elder brother of the

present appellant - defendant herein, instituted a suit for

partition

and

separate

possession

by

specifically

contending that the suit schedule properties are undivided

joint family properties and all the properties purchased in

the name of the appellant - defendant are also joint family

ancestral properties and hence, prayed for allotting his

legitimate share in the suit schedule properties.

3. The appellant - defendant on receipt of summons

contested the proceedings and stoutly denied the entire

averments made in the plaint. The present appellant -

defendant contended that the house property situated at

Bengaluru bearing Door No.344 i.e., item No.1 and the

land measuring 13 guntas in Sy. No.58 are also joint

family ancestral properties . It was further contended in

the written statement that these properties are also

purchased out of the joint family corpus and therefore, he

is entitled for share in these two properties. Insofar as

5

item No.2 is concerned, the appellant - defendant

contended that it is his self acquired property.

4. Based on the rival contentions, the Trial Court

formulated the issues. The plaintiff and the defendant

have lead in oral and documentary evidence. Learned

Judge on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence

answered issue No.4 and additional issue in the negative.

The Trial Court, while answering issue No.4 and additional

issue, has held that the properties reflected in the written

statement are self acquired properties of the plaintiff and

therefore, the said properties are not available for

partition. While answering additional issue, the Trial Court

held that the appellant - defendant has failed to prove that

item No.2 purchased by the appellant - defendant is his

self acquired property. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment

and decree of the Trial Court, the appellant -defendant

preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court. The

Appellate Court having independently assessed the oral

and documentary evidence has concurred with the

6

reasoning and conclusion arrived at by the Trial Court and

consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Against these

concurrent judgments, the defendant is before this Court.

5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant

- defendant. Perused the concurrent judgments of the

Courts.

6. Issue No.4 and additional issue are core issues in

the present suit. Therefore, this Court deems fit to cull out

these two issues, which read as under;

4. Whether the defendant proves that

the house property situated at Bengaluru

bearing D.No.344, 6th Cross, Parvathinagar,

Laggere, Peenya Post, Bengaluru - 58 is also a

joint family property purchased out of the joint

family nucleus and as such, he is also entitled

for 1/2 share in the said property and so also

the property measuring 0-13 guntas in Sy.

No.58 as contended in para 13 of written

statement?

7

Addl. Issue.

1. Whether the defendant proves that

the property in item No.2 of the plaint schedule

is his self acquired property?

7. Having regard to the fact that the relationship

between the parties is not in dispute, both Courts have

examined the evidence on record. Both Courts having

perused the clinching and cogent evidence lead in by

plaintiff more particularly Ex.P.12 dated 26.12.2001 have

come to the conclusion that out of the provident fund, the

plaintiff has purchased property bearing Door No.344 and

property measuring 13 guntas in Sy. No.58. Having

examined this clinching evidence, both the Courts have

concurrently recorded a finding that the plaintiff being the

elder member was in fact serving in HAL, Bengaluru and

he has not utilized the family corpus while acquiring the

above said properties. In absence of r