ORAL JUDGMENT

2. Brief facts:

3. Defendant No.1 appeared through his counsel, but did not choose to file any written statement.

4. In order to substantiate her contentions, the plaintiff examined herself as PW.1 and marked 6 documents as EXs.P1 to P6.

6. Heard Sri. Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Sri. Rajakumar G., learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri. T. Sheshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that utilization of the funds standing in the plaintiff's savings account for purchase of the suit property renders the suit property as a joint family property. Learned counsel submits that alienation by defendant No.1 was not for legal necessity and without plaintiff's consent. It is argued that applying of Article 109 of the Limitation Act by the Trial Co