Sri M. Venkataramanappa since Deceased by L.Rs. Smt. Parvathamma, Smt. Achamma and Sri Sadananda vs Sri Hareppa and Others

A.S. Pachhapure, J.—The appellants have challenged the judgment and decree of partition granted by the trial Court and confirmed in the appeal by the first appellate Court. The facts in brief are as under:

The parties would be referred as per their rank before the trial Court for the sake of convenience. The appellant herein is the first defendant, whereas respondents 1 to 3 are the plaintiffs and respondents 4 and 5 were defendants 2 and 3 in the trial Court. The suit came to be instituted by respondents 1 to 3 claiming equitable share in the suit properties. The first defendant had taken up a contention that the suit properties are the self acquired properties and they were purchased by him under a registered sale deed by paying the sale consideration of his own and therefore it was his contention that the plaintiffs had no share in the suit properties.

The trial Court after framing the issues permitted the parties to lead their evidence. Accordingly, the plaintiffs examined as PWs. 1 and 2 and the documents Exs. P1 to P21 were marked. The defendants examined DWs. 1 to 3 and the documents Exs. D1 to D27 were marked. In the trial Court CW1 was examined and the documents Exs. C1 to C8 were marked. The trial Court after hearing the counsel and on the appreciation of the evidence on record decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the first defendant preferred an appeal in RA No. 132/2009 and the said appeal came to be dismissed by the first appellate Court. Challenging the decrees of the Courts below, the present appeal is filed by the legal representative of the first defendant.

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants.

It is the contention for the learned counsel for the appellants that the suit properties are the self acquired properties and the respondents had not led any evidence to show that the properties were purchased by use of the joint family income. So, he contends that in the absence of any nucleus or joint family income, the Courts cannot draw any inference that the suit properties are the joint family properties. He submits that this aspect of the matter has been not considered by the Courts below. Perusal of the judgment and decrees of the Courts below in the context of the contention raised by the learned counsel reveals, that Exs. D3 and D14 are the partition deeds between the parties. The Courts below have not accepted these two documents for the reason stated and by assigning satisfactory reasons. It is relevant to note that when the appellant himself has produced Exs. D3 and D14 the partition deeds relating to the suit properties, he cannot take up a contention that the suit properties are the self acquired properties having consented and having asserted the properties are joint family properties by producing documents Exs. D3 and D14 the partition deeds. Anyhow, the Court below have not accepted the partition under these two documents. Hence, the appellants cannot take up a contention now that the suit properties are the self acquired properties, having asserted under Exs. D3 and D14 that they are the joint family properties. The Courts below after taking into consideration the material placed on record and the evidence led by the parties have granted a decree. I find no substantial question of law for consideration in this appeal.

Consequently, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.