The court upheld the principle that evidence of joint familial ties and prior agreements significantly influences property ownership claims in partition suits.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the parties could not see eye to eye and therefore, amicable settlement is impermissible. Hence, the matter is taken up for hearing.

2. Heard Sri Nagaraja S, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri C.R. Gopala Swamy, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri Chandrashekar N, counsel for Sri Sajjad Ahmed G, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5, and Sri T.M.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 4.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

4. Present Appeal is filed by the defendant No.2 challenging the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.117/2003 dated 20.01.2017 on the file of the Prl. Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Tumakuru, confirmed in R.A.No.25/2017 c/w R.A.No.37/2017 dated 29.03.2021 on the file of the VI Additional District Judge, Tumakuru.

5. Since defendant No.1-Narayanappa died, defendant No.2- Thimmappa who is appellant herein, filed R.A.No.25/2017 in his capacity as the legal representative of deceased defendant No.1-Narayanappa. Defendant No.3-Lakshmamma filed R.A.No.37/2017. Learned Judge in the First Appellate Court by common judgment dated 29.03.2021, dismissed both the appeals confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court.

6. Parties are referred to as plaintiffs and defendants for the sake of convenience.

7. The present appeal came to be admitted on the following substantial question of law:

“Whether the findings of the Courts below that item No.13 is also joint family ancestral property is perverse, palpably erroneous and contrary to the clinching rebuttal evidence vide Ex.D.29, which is a registered mortgage deed executed by the plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 and 2 and in the said mortgage deed, it is clearly indicated that item No.13 is the self acquired property of defendant No.2?

8. Facts of the case which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present appeal are as under:

9. Plaintiff-Srinivasa who is the son of defendant No.1- Narayanappa filed suit for partition and separate possession in respect of following properties, hereinafter referred to as ‘suit properties’: SCHEDULE

1) S.No.41/6, bagayath, out of this 0-19 guntas.

2) S.No.42/1, dry, out of this 2-25 guntas.

3) S.No.53/2, dry, 0-04 guntas.

4) S.No.53/2,dry, 0-03 guntas with red tiled house.

5) S.No.53/1A, out of this 3-37 guntas.

6) S.No.54/1, of this, 2-09 guntas.

All the above properties situated in Dibbur grama of Tumakuru Kasaba, Tumakuru.

7) S.No.268, out of this site measuring 21 x 46. 8) S.No.268, out of this 0-16 guntas of dry land.

9) S.No.256, wet, out of this 0-11 guntas of land. 10) S.No.254, wet, out of this 0-18 guntas of land.

11) S.No.46/1A, wet, out of this 0-08 guntas of land.

12) S.No.46/2, out of this 0-36 guntas of land, All the item Sl.No.7 to 12 are situated in Tumakuru Amanikere Grama, Kasaba, Tumakuru.

13. S.No.41/2, dry, out of which 1-23 guntas situated Dibbur grama, Kasba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, bounded by:East by: L and of Ramaiah, West by: Land of Puttamma, North by: Land of Chanel of Kharab, South by: Remaining land of Narayanappa.

14. S.No.267, wet, out of this 0-06 guntas land situated at Tumakuru Amanikere, Kasba Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk, bounded by:

East by: Land of Karinarasaiah, West by: Land of Chikkashimaiah, North by: Land Lokesh, South by: Remaining land Narayanappa.

10. Plaintiff contended that he is the son of defendant No.1, and defendant No.2 is his brother, defendant Nos.3 to 6 are his sisters who constituted a Hindu joint family. Defendant No.1 was the kartha of the joint family who was managing and looking after the joint family properties.

11. However, when defendant No.1 made