The plaintiffs in O.S.No.129/2016 are before this

Court being aggrieved by the judgment and decree

passed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge,

Gadag in the said suit dismissing the suit.

- 3 -

O.S.No.129/2016 has been filed by the plaintiffs

seeking for partition and separate possession of the

joint family properties. Plaintiffs No.1, 2 and 3 are

stated to be the children of defendant and plaintiff

No.4, is the wife of the defendant.

It is contended that the defendant, his father

Mangilal and Abhaykumar brother of the defendant

were doing business as well as agriculture work.

There being difference of opinion between Mangilal,

Abhaykumar

and

the

defendant,

a

suit

in

O.S.No.158/2015 had been filed before the Senior

Additional Civil Judge, Gadag which ended in a

compromise before the Lok Adalat and a compromise

petition having been filed, a compromise decree was

passed.

It is alleged that in the said compromise, it is

categorically stated that the properties belong to a

joint family (Ekatra Garane) and as such on the said

- 4 -

partition the property which came to the share of

defendant became the joint family property between

defendant and plaintiffs No.1, 2 and 3 who are his

children. It was alleged that the defendant was not

taking care of the family he was addicted to bad

voices and was not bothered about welfare of the

family. Therefore the demand was made for partition

of the properties by meets and bounds which was not

acceded to by the defendant as such aforesaid suit

came to be filed.

5.

The defendant filed his written statement admitting

relationship but contended that there is no joint

family business being carried on between Mangilal,

Abhaykumar and the defendant and the defendant is

doing his own business as proprietor by name of Sai

Corner.

He

further

alleged

that

the

suit

in

O.S.No.158/2015 had been filed with an oblique

motive to show the properties are the joint family

properties when in fact they were the self acquired

- 5 -

properties of the defendant and as such it was

contended by the defendant that the properties

which had been self acquired by the defendant were

allotted to the defendant under the partition. The

defendant further alleged that the suit had been filed

at the instigation of his father who wanted to destroy

the defendant’s business and his name as also cause

problem to him in repaying the loan amounts which

had been borrowed by the defendant. Based on the

above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following

issues;

“1. Whether the plaintiffs prove that, the suit schedule

properties are joint family properties of themselves

and defendant and they members of Hindu Undivided

Family and the suit schedule properties are available

for partition?

2. Whether the defendant proves that, the suit schedule

properties are his self-acquired properties?

3. Whether the defendant further proves that, the suit is

bad for non-joinder necessary parties?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the share as

claimed in the suit?

5. what order or decree?”

6.

And answered them as under;

- 6 -

“Issue No.1: In the negative

Issue No.2: In the affirmative

Issue No.3: In the negative

Issue No.4: In the negative”

7.

Sri. J.S.Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants has submitted that

7.1 the Trial Court has miss applied itself inasmuch

as the Trial Court has accepted the contention

of the defendant that the property is self

acquired property merely on the ground that

the defendant had produced Exs.D.2 to 5 being

registered sale deeds as regards the suit

schedule properties under which the defendant

had purchased those properties, it cannot not

be said that the said properties are self

acquired properties of the defendant more so

when in the partition which had been effected

in O.S.No.158/2015 there is specific statement

made that the properties are joint family

- 7 -

properties and certain properties were allotted

to the share of the defendant.

7.2 once the properties are joint famil