Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned

counsel for respondents are absent. This Court made it

clear that if counsel for respondents does not appear, the

matter will be heard in their absence.

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff questioning

the finding of the trial Court in respect of item at Sl.No.3

of schedule 8A9 property i.e. 1 acre of land bearing

Sy.No.214/2C2P.

- 3 -

The main contention of the plaintiff before the

trial Court is that defendant Nos.3 and 4 are his sisters

and defendant No.2 is his father and defendant No.1 is the

purchaser of item at Sl.No.3 of the property. Defendant

No.3 is the married sister and defendant No.4 is still

unmarried. The said property belongs to the joint family

and defendant No.2 got share of certain agricultural lands

and house properties described in schedule 8A9 and 8B9 for

family partition. The plaintiff9s uncle had instituted

O.S.No.19/87, the said was compromised. The properties

are ancestral properties and defendant No.2 had sold

property in favour of defendant No.1 on 13.10.1988 and

by that time plaintiff and defendant Nos.3 and 4 were

minors and sale was made not for any family necessity or

for any joint family benefit. Defendant No.1 had sold a plot

and accordingly defendant No.2 had sold the same in

order to deprive the rights of the plaintiff and other family

members and hence, sought for decree for partition of 8A9

and 8B9 schedule properties claiming 1/4^th share.

- 4 -

In pursuance of the suit notice, defendant No.1

appeared and filed written statement contending that the

suit item No.3 land shown in 8A9 schedule property

purchased out of income from the land and house

properties on behalf of joint family and denied the said

contention of the plaintiff and contended that question of

granting any 1/4^th share in respect of suit land does not

arise. The defendant contended that there was already a

partition in the family in respect of ancestral properties in

between defendant No.2 and his brother and the said

property was allotted to the share of defendant No.2. It is

contended that the property belongs to defendant No.2

and hence he was the absolute owner of suit schedule

item No.3 and he has sold it in favour of this defendant for

his family necessity for a valuable consideration of Rs.3

lakhs and possession is also delivered. Defendant after the

purchase of the property made improvements over the

suit land with an intention to convert the said land for non-

agricultural purpose. Further, it is contended that without

prejudice to the above and without admitting the share of

- 5 -

the plaintiff in the suit schedule item No.3 it is submitted

that the defendant No.2 owns some other properties which

have been purchased in the name of his wife and other

relatives but have not been included int eh suit for which

the suit for partial partition of the family properties is not

maintainable.

5.

Defendant No.3 also filed written statement

admitting that suit schedule properties are joint family

properties and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are in joint

possession and enjoyment of all the joint family properties

including Sy.No.214/2C2P measuring 1 acre described at

item No3 of schedule 8A9 property and also claimed 1/4^th

share.

6.

Based on the pleadings of the parties the trial

Court framed the following issues:

1.

Whether the plaintiff proves that the suit

schedule properties are the joint family properties

of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 t 4?

- 6 -

2.

Whether the plaintiff proves that he was

having a 1/4h share in schedule 8A9 and 8B9

properties?

3.

Whether the defendant No.1 proves that the

suit schedule 8A9 at Sy.No.3 property was self-

acquired property of defendant No.2 and he has

sold the same to him for his legal necessity?

4.

Whether the defendant No.1 proves that he

was a bonafide purchaser of the suit schedule 8A9

Sl.No.3 property?

5.

Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled

for partition and separate possession of his 1/4^th

share in the suit schedule property?