This appeal is filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff in

O.S.No.83/2003 challenging the concurrent finding of fact

and law that she is not entitled for a share in the suit

schedule properties.

2.

The parties shall henceforth be referred as

they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3.

The suit in O.S.No.83/2003 was filed for

partition

and

separate

possession,

contending

that

Bheemappa Bhaja Reddy was the propositus of a joint

family comprised of he and his two sons namely,

Hanumappa Bhaja Reddy and Nagappa Bhaja Reddy

(defendant No.1). It was stated that after the death of the

propositus, his two sons continued to live jointly and both

3

of them were jointly enjoying all the properties of their

father. The plaintiff and defendant No.2 are the daughters

of defendant No.1.

4.

It is contended that the defendant No.1 and his

brother partitioned the properties on 06.04.1998 and the

defendant No.1 received the suit schedule properties as his

share at the partition. She contended that the partition

was acted upon by the defendant No.1 and his brother.

Based on the said partition, revenue records were

transferred. The plaintiff alleged that from the income

generated from the agricultural lands at Yerekuppi village,

the defendant No.1 purchased the suit item No.1. She

therefore, contended that all the suit properties were

ancestral and joint family properties of the plaintiff and

defendants. Hence, she claimed to be in joint possession

and enjoyment of the properties.

5.

She alleged that by virtue of the Hindu

Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (henceforth referred

to as 8Act of 20059), the plaintiff and the defendant No.2

4

were co-parceners with the defendant No.1 and that she

was entitled to 1/3^rd share in the suit properties. She

claimed that her marriage was performed on 28.04.1999,

while the marriage of the defendant No.2 was performed in

the year 1999. Therefore, she contended that she was

entitled to an undivided share in the suit schedule

properties. She further contended that defendant No.1 was

attempting to alienate the suit schedule item No.1 in

favour

of

Hanumappa

Pakeerappa

Kattimani

and

Hanumappa Basappa Doddamani. She, therefore, sought

for her share in the suit schedule properties.

6.

The suit was contested by the defendant No.1.

He admitted the relationship with the plaintiff. However, he

stated that the suit item No.1 was purchased by him on

19.04.1974 even before he had married. He claimed that

the said property was purchased out of his own income

and thus, it was his self-acquisition. He contended that suit

item Nos.3 and 4 were granted in favour of the defendant

No.1 by Land Tribunal in terms of the order dated

15.05.1976. Therefore, he contended that those properties

5

were his self acquired properties. He alleged that he had

spent a sum of Rs.25,000/- for the plaintiff when she was

admitted at a hospital for delivery and a sum of

Rs.50,000/- for her marriage and Rs.49,000/- for the

marriage of the defendant No.2. He contended that if the

Court were to hold that the plaintiff was entitled for her

share, then she was also liable to bear the liabilities of the

family. He contended that his wife was alive and not

impleading her was fatal to the suit.

7.

Based on these rival contentions the Trial

Court framed the following issues:

1) Whether plaintiff proves that the suit schedule

properties are joint family properties of plaintiff

and defendants 1 & 2?

2) Whether defendant No.1 proves that the suit

schedule item No.1, 3 & 4 are his self-acquired

properties?

3) Whether defendant No.1 further proves that the

suit item No.1 property has been sold in the

month of July 2003 for the expenses of hospital

of his wife and as well as for the legal necessity of

his family in favour of Veerappa Hosalli r/o Yenni

Hosalli?

6

4) Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of wife of

defendant No.1?

5) Whether defendant No.1 further proves that he

had made expenses to the plaintiff twice for

Rs.25,000-00 at the time of her pregnancy and as