Joint family properties require proof of contributions for claims of ownership, and failing to provide credible evidence results in loss of claims.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

1. This appeal is preferred by the defendant No.1 against the judgment and decree dated 24.10.2005 passed in O.S. No. 36/1994 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Haveri.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

3. It was the case of the plaintiff (respondent No.1 herein) that his father Siddappa had six sons by name, Ganapa (second defendant), Malleshappa (defendant No.4), Eshwarappa (first defendant), Yallappa (plaintiff), Erappa (defendant No.5) and Dyamappa (defendant No.6) and four daughters by name Ningavva (defendant No.3), Kusumavva (defendant No.9), Avakka (defendant No.7), Renavva (defendant No.8). Both Siddappa and his wife are no more. The son of Siddappa by name Malleshappa referred above died about ten years back in Ranebennur. His wife and children are defendants in the present suit. The second son of Siddappa, i.e., defendant No.2, is not mentally sound and he has no independent thinking capacity. He was working in different houses in the village and thereafter he worked in a hotel at Haveri and is staying in the said hotel. He was married and having four children. Another son of Siddappa by name Malleshappa left Haveri during the year 1958 and was residing with his family in Ranebennur and as stated above he died about ten years back. The daughters of Siddappa got married and they were residing in their respective husband’s houses. It is further contended that Siddappa during his lifetime maintaining the cattle and used to sell milk and from the said earning he purchased some of the properties. At that time by his earning he purchased the property mentioned in Schedule B2 by registered sale deed dated 19.03.1960. Property bearing CTS No. 1566, i.e., Schedule B1 is ancestral property of Siddappa.

4. During the lifetime of Siddappa, plaintiff and defendant No.1 were residing with him in the ancestral house and continued milk vending business by maintaining the cows and buffalos. From the said dairy farm they used to earn. Defendant No.1 was intelligent and having worldly knowledge. Plaintiff was not having so much worldly knowledge. Therefore he used to work in the farm and maintaining the cattle. He was milking the cow and defendant No.1 used to sell to different hotels and other household. Defendant No.1 was elder to the plaintiff and he was managing the family. Even after the death of Siddappa, plaintiff and defendant No.1 continued said business jointly and defendant No.1 used to get earning from the said business with him. From the said income he purchased suit ‘A’ schedule property by registered sale deed dated 06.02.1976. Thereafter the said property has been enjoyed by the plaintiff and first defendant together. The number of she-buffaloes were increased approximately four to five years prior to the filing of the suit. Consequently, defendant No.1 rented a building from one Shivappa Agadi and maintaining the cattle in the said building. The plaintiff was also residing in the said premises until recently to assist in maintaining the cattle. The same was continued till recently, i.e., prior to filing of the suit.

5. It is further averred that, few weeks prior to filing of the suit, son of the first defendant abused the plaintiff and alleged that he was not maintaining the cattle properly. In view of the said reason plaintiff demanded for partition and separate possession of his share in the suit property. Defendant No.1 refused to effect partition. Therefore he was constrained to file the suit. With these reasons plaintiffs prayed to grant the relief of partition and separate pos