- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.3050 OF 2010 (PAR) BETWEEN: SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. BHIMA JARALI DIED ON 01.02.2010. SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR’S. 1. SHRI LAXMAN BHIMA JARALI, AGE: 66 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANKALI-591 313, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 1A. SMT. SHIVUBAI W/O. LAXMAN JARALI, AGE: 78 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: ANKALI VILLAGE, HUKKERI TALUKA, DIST: BELAGAVI-591313. 1B. RAVINDRA S/O. LAXMAN JARALI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANKALI VILLAGE, HUKKERI TALUKA, DIST: BELAGAVI-591313. 2. SHRI SIDRAM BHIMA JARALI, AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANKALI-591 313, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2A. SMT. SUSHEELA W/O. SIDRAM JARALI, AGED: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ANKALI-591 313, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2B. SMT. SUNITA W/O. ANNAPPA MAGADUM, AGED: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NIDASOSHI-591 236, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2C. SHRI LAGAMA S/O. SIDRAM JARALI, AGED: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 R/O: ANKALI-591 313, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2D. SHRI CHETAN S/O. SIDRAM JARALI, AGED: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANKALI-591 313, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. SHRI. APPASAHEB BHIMA JARALI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANKALI-591 313, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SHRI TAMMANNA BHIMA JARALI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANKALI-591 313, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SHRI. DUNDAPPA BHIMA JARALI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANKALI-591 313, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 6. SMT. SHANTA D/O. BHIMA JARALI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: ANKALI-591 313, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 7. SMT. PUSHPA W/O. PRAKASH ARABOLE, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: TANNODI-416 551, TALUKA: GADHINGLAJ, DIST: KOLHAPUR, STATE: MAHARASHTRA. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI SHEKARGOUDA NAGANURI, ADV. FOR APPELLANTS AND PROP. A1 (A AND B); APPEAL ABATED AGAINST A2) AND: 1. SMT. TAYAWA @ TAYAKKA W/O. SHANKAR SHILE, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KADALAGE-416 506, TALUKA: GADHINGLAJ, DIST: KOLHAPUR, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 MAHARASTRA STATE. 2. SMT. AWAKKA W/O. SHANKAR MASTI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: BHADGAON-416502, TAL: GADHINGLAJ, DIST: KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE. 3. SHRI. SHANKAR SHIVALING JARALI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANKALI-591 313, TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 4. SHRI. PANDIT SHIVALING JARALI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANKALI-591 313, TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 5. SHRI. ISHWAR SHIVALING JARALI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: H.NO.67, II CROSS, 7TH MAIN TATA NAGAR KODAGIHALLI, BYATRAYANPUR, BENGALURU-560092. 6. SHRI. MAHALING SHIVALING JARALI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANKALI-591 313, TAL: HUKERI. 6A. SMT. VIJAYMALA W/O. MAHALING JARALI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 6B. SWAPNIL S/O. MAHALING JARALI, AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 6C. PRIYANKA W/O. MAHANTESH PATIL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, ALL RESIDENTS OF ANKALI VILLAGE, HUKKERI TALUKA, DIST. BELAGAVI-591313. 7. SHRI. SUKHADEV SHIVALING JARALI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: DOOR NO.26A NEW NO.90 ‘SHRUTI NIWAS’, KRISHNA TEMPLE ROAD, DODDABOMMASANDRA VIDYARANYAPUR POST BENGALURU-560 097. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 8. SHRI. MAHADEV MALLAPPA NAIK, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BELAVI - 591 309, TAL: HUKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 9. SMT. SUSHILA W/O. SHIVALING WANI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NIDASOSHI-591 236, TAL: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 10. SHRI. MARUTI BHIMA JARALI, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: ANKALI-591 313, TALUKA: HUKKERI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S. KAMATE, ADV. FOR R1 TO R7 AND FOR R6 (A TO C); R1 AND R2 – DISMISSED AS ABATED; SRI S.M. TONNE, ADV. FOR PROP. R1(B),R2 (A) AND R4(A TO D); R1(A)-NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT; SRI RAVI S.BALIKAI, ADVOCATE FOR R9 AND R10; NOTICE TO R8 IS SERVED; R4 – APPEAL DISMISSED AS ABATED) THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908, PRAYING TO 1) SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.01.2010 PASSED BY THE CIVIL JUDGE SR. DN. HUKKERI, IN OS NO.08.2004; II) DECREE THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANTS AND RESPONDENTS 9 AND 10 AWARDING ½ SHARE IN THE SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES. III) ALLOW THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2010 passed in O.S.No.8/2004 by the Court of Civil Judge (SR.DN), Hukkeri (for short, ‘Trial Court’), thereby, the suit filed for partition and separate possession is dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience and easy reference, the parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Trial Court. 3. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession claiming that plaintiffs and defendant No.9 are entitled to half share in all the suit schedule properties by contending that suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendants by constituting Hindu Undivided Family. 4. The genealogy of the family of plaintiffs and defendants is given as under as under: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 LAGAMA died on 22.05.1973 Tayawa (died long back) Bhima (died on 9.2.1996) Shivaling(died on 7.8.1996) =Laxmibai (alive) P-1 =Gangawa (predeceased her husband) Laxman Sidram Appasaheb Tammmanna Maruti Dundappa Shanta Sushila Pushpa P-2 P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7 P-8 D-9 P-9 Tayawa Awakka Shankar Pandit Ishwar Mahaling Sukhadev D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5 D-6 D-7 5. It is stated that the original propositus of family Lagama Jarali died on 22.05.1973 leaving behind his two sons namely Bheema and Shivaling. Bheema died on 09.02.1996 leaving behind his wife Laxmbai and six sons i.e., plaintiffs No.2 to 7 and three daughters i.e., plaintiffs No.8 and 9 and defendant No.9. Whereas, Shivaling Jarali died on 17.08.1996 leaving behind his two daughters i.e., defendants No.1, 2 and 5 and sons i.e., defendants No.3 to 7. The plaintiffs have pleaded that how they have occupied ancestral property through the original propositus Lagama Jarali. Further stated that the joint family was holding sufficient income and out of joint family funds, Lagama Jarali purchased the land bearing R.S.No.81/2 measuring 1 acre 33 guntas through registered Sale Deed - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 dated 16.09.1966. Further pleaded that, out of joint family funds, Bheema and Shivaling have purchased the land bearing R.S.Nos.138/1B and 138/3 through registered Sale Deed dated 05.04.1968. Further pleaded that the main propositus Lagama Jarali had also purchased the land bearing R.S.No.139/2 out of joint family funds. The plaintiffs and defendants have also purchased the land bearing R.S.No.139/1B measuring 1 acre 11 guntas through registered Sale Deed dated 15.02.1972. Further stated that two house properties are also joint family properties, which are inherited from Siddappa Jarali. Thus by claiming that all the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties and there was no division in the family. Hence, filed the suit for partition and separate possession. 6. The defendants have filed a written statement by admitting relationship between plaintiffs and defendants. It is the main contention of defendants that there was earlier partition in the family and was acted upon. Therefore, it is the case made out by defendants that from the year 1962, there is no joint family status in the family of plaintiffs and defendants. Therefore, defendants by taking pleading that there was earlier - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 partition and suit schedule properties are not the ancestral and joint family properties, hence, prays to dismiss the suit. 7. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court has framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to ½ share in the plaint schedule A, B & C properties as described in the plaint? And if so, along with defendant No.9? 2. Whether defendant No.3 proves that partition already taken place on 1st May 1962 in the presence of so called panchas as contended in the WS and got allotted their shares as per sketch maps pertaining to the plaint schedules? 3. Whether the defendant No.3 further proves the properties purchased after the purported partition of 1st May 1962 are self acquired properties between the plaintiffs and defendant No.9 and defendant No.3 in respect of suit schedule properties? Re-caused Issue No.3 Whether defendant No.3 further proves the properties purchased after the purported partition of 1/5/1962 are self acquired properties between the plaintiffs and defendant No.9 and defendant No.3 to 7 in respect of schedule properties? - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 4. As to what order or decree? 8. The plaintiff No.7 was examined himself as PW.1 and one witness was examined as PW.2 and got marked documentary evidence as Ex.P1 to Ex.P34. Defendant No.3 was examined as DW.1 and two witnesses were examined as DW.2 and DW.3 and got marked documentary evidence as Ex.D1 to Ex.D234a. 9. The Trial Court has answered the issues that there was already partition on 01.5.1962, therefore, the suit properties were no longer joint family properties. Thus, dismissed the suit. It is observed that the plaintiffs have failed to prove joint status of family and also the properties are joint family properties. The Trial Court has relied upon Ex.D13, Ex.D14, Ex.D15, Ex.D16 and Ex.D17 decree passed in O.S No.60/1970 assailed against Bheema. There was admission by the father of Bheema that there was already partition in the family. Further, other revenue records proved the fact that there was partition in the family. Therefore, dismissed the suit. 10. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of suit, the plaintiffs have preferred the appeal and raised various grounds. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 The ground raised is that the Trial Court has clubbed issue Nos.1 to 3 and given common answer, is not correct approach. Further, raised the ground that the suit land at Sl.Nos.1 to 6 of schedule ‘A’ of the plaint originally belong to Sri.Shankaracharya Math and the Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights to the father of defendants No.1 to 7. Thus, the suit properties are joint family properties. Further raised the ground that the Land Tribunal, Hukkeri, jointly granted occupancy rights in respect of land bearing R.S No.36 of Ankali village to the father of the appellants/plaintiffs and father of defendants No.1 to 7. But there was no division in the said property. Further raised the ground that the suit schedule properties are purchased out of joint family nucleus funds. Therefore, all the properties are joint family and ancestral properties of plaintiffs and defendants. But this has not been considered by the Trial Court. Hence, prays to allow the appeal. 11. Heard the arguments of learned counsels appearing for both the sides and perused the material placed before the Court. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 12. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that all the suit schedule properties are ancestral and continued to be as joint family properties. There was no earlier partition. Therefore, the properties remain continued as joint family properties. It is submitted that if there was earlier partition, then there could have been reflection in the revenue records regarding division of properties. But in the revenue records, names of plaintiffs and defendants are continued. Though defendants have taken contention that there was earlier partition, but it was not acted upon, therefore, prays to allow the appeal. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants submitted that as per Ex.D2, Ex.D3 and Ex.D5 – diary extracts, it is proved that there was partition between Bheema and Shivaling. In the revenue records, half of the extent of land was given to Bheema, which proved the fact that there was division of properties between the Bheema and Lagama Jarali. Further submitted that Shivaling has filed suit in O.S No.69/1970 against Bheema for permanent injunction. In the said case, Bheema has deposed that there was partition in the family and both Bheema and Shivaling have divided the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 properties respectively. Therefore, the depositions and judgment in O.S No.69/1970 is relevant for proving the fact that there was partition in the family as per Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Further, the properties are purchased by defendants No.5 and 6, since they were working at Bengaluru. Therefore, out of their own income they have purchased properties at Bengaluru. Therefore, those properties cannot be considered as joint family properties. Therefore submitted that the Trial Court after considering all the aspects has rightly dismissed the suit, which needs no interference by this Court. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 14. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsels for both the parties and perusing the records, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal: i) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, plaintiffs prove that all the suit schedule properties are ancestral and joint family properties and there is no partition at previous point of time and therefore, the suit schedule properties continued as joint family properties? ii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the defendants No.1 to 8 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 prove that there was partition in the year 1962 and these suit schedule properties are not remained as joint family properties? iii) Whether, under the facts and circumstances involved in the case, the documentary evidence Ex.D13 to Ex.D17 which are depositions and judgment and decree in O.S No.60/1970, prove the fact that there was earlier partition between the Bheema Jarali and Shivaling Jarali? 15. In the present case, the plaintiffs have pleaded that all the suit properties are joint family and ancestral properties and there is no division of properties between Bheema and Shivaling and family is continued as joint family. When defendants have taken contention that there are previous partitions in the family, then it is the burden on the defendants to prove that there was earlier partition in the family. Ex.D2, Ex.D3 and Ex.D5 are diary extracts, which are revenue records. Ex.D2a is Kannada translation of Marathi version of revenue records, in which, it is stated that a report was given to revenue authorities stating that all the properties be recorded in the name of Bheema and Shivaling. Accordingly, the names of Bheema and Shivaling were mutated. Ex.D3a is mutation - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 entry No.1954 dated 15.8.1976, showing that the suit properties were divided among the children of Bheema, who were arrayed as plaintiffs herein to the half extent and the remaining half extent, which is reflected in the revenue records Ex.D4 and Ex.D5. Therefore, it proved the fact that there was division of properties between Bheema Jarali and Shivaling Jarali, who are the sons of Lagama Jarali. Ex.D3 – Diary extract proved the fact that the children of Bheema namely plaintiffs and defendant No.9, have obtained half share in the suit schedule properties, held as joint family status. Ex.D6 and Ex.D7 are record of rights, which show entering the name of Bheema Jarali by deleting the name of Shivaling Jarali. Therefore, there was partition effected earlier and according to that the names were mutated in the revenue records. The partition was oral partition and accordingly have given report to the revenue authorities and as per documentary evidence discussed above, it is proved that the children of Bheema namely plaintiffs and defendant No.9 have obtained half share in the properties. 16. Not only this, the land bearing R.S.No.36 was granted by the Land Tribunal jointly in the name of Bheema - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 and Shivaling. When there were earlier partitions in the family, the said land was fallen to the share of Shivaling. It is the case of defendants that Bheema had started interference with the possession of Shivaling. Therefore, Shivaling has filed the suit in O.S No.69/1970 for permanent injunction against Bheema. In the said O.S No.69/1970 Bheema has deposed that there was partition in the family wherein, partition was held according to their extent and there was no joint family status and also contends that the land bearing R.S.No.36 was granted jointly in the name of Shivaling Jarali and Bheema Jarali, later got divided properties. When this being the deposition of Bheema Jarali that there was partition, it could not be a stray sentence while appreciating the deposition. The deposition made by Bheema, who was DW.1 in O.S No.60/1970, with all his consciousness and awareness has unequivocally deposed that they have divided family lands. 17. It was the case in O.S.No.60/1970 filed by Shivaling that Bheema by claiming land bearing R.S.No.36 of Ankali village, which was exclusively given in his name and therefore with allegation that Bheema was interfering with the possession of Shivaling, filed the suit. Therefore, father of defendants - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 namely Shivaling has filed the suit for permanent injunction in O.S No.69/1970. It is the case of father of defendants in O.S No.60/1970 that the land was given jointly by the Land Tribual in the name of Bheema and Shivaling and later on, the said land bearing R.S.No.36 was given to the name of Shivaling in the family partition. But Bheema has started to make claim over the said land. In this context, when the suit in O.S No.60/1970 was filed, it was the contention and assertion made by Bheema Jarali that the land in R.S.No.36 was taken on lease exclusively in the name of Bheema Jarali, so in this context, it was the deposition of Bheema Jarali, who is the father of plaintiffs and defendant No.9 that the family was divided and all the family members have got share in partition of suit properties. Therefore, the depositions of Bheema Jarali in O.S No.60/1970 cannot be termed as mere a stray sentence. Upon reading the entire depositions Ex.D13, Ex.D14 and Ex.D15, it is the contention and assertion of Bheema Jarali that the family was divided about 27 or 28 years back at the time of giving evidence in the said suit. 18. It is also deposition in Ex.D-13 that both Bheema and Shivaling have given varadi to Mamalatedar about family - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 partition. Upon considering the entire depositions at Exs.D-13 to D-15, with all consciousness it is deposed by Bheema Jarali that there was a partition in the family and family properties were got divided between Shivaling and Bheema. Therefore, this evidence i.e., Ex-D13 to D15 are relevant as per Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, proving the fact of there was partition in the family. 19. It is not proper to say that, only by the documentary evidences at Exs-D13 to D-15-depositions themselves in O.S.No.60/1970 the partition is not proved, but the depositions in the said O.S.No.60/1970 are one of the relevant evidence proving the fact of there was a partition earlier in the family. This Court is not only relying on the Exs- D13 to D15-depositions and Ex.D16 and 17-judgment and decree to say that there was partition in the family but also as discussed above, from the revenue records, it is proved that the father of the plaintiffs namely, Bheema Jarali has obtained half share in all the joint family properties. 20. Section 33 of Indian Evidence Act reads as follows: “33. Relevancy of certain evidence for proving, in subsequent proceeding, the truth of - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 facts therein stated.–Evidence given by a witness in a judicial proceeding, or before any person authorised by law to take it, is relevant for the purpose of proving, in a subsequent judicial proceeding, or in a later stage of the same judicial proceeding, the truth of the facts which it states, when the witness is dead or cannot be found, or is incapable of giving evidence, or is kept out of the way by the adverse party, or if his presence cannot be obtained without an amount of delay or expense which, under the circumstances of the case, the Court considers unreasonable: Provided – that the proceeding was between the same parties or their representatives in interest; that the adverse party in the first proceeding had the right and opportunity to cross-examine; that the questions in issue were substantially the same in the first as in the second proceeding.” 21. The evidence given by witnesses in a judicial proceeding is relevant for the purpose of proving a particular fact in later stage of judicial proceeding between the parties. Though, the ancestors are parties have given evidence, here in the present case, both Bheema and Shivaling died. During lifetime of Shivaling and Bheema, there was a suit in O.S.No.60/1970. The said suit is filed by Shivaling against Bheema for permanent injunction in respect of land bearing R.S.No.36 which is also one of the subject matter in the present suit. In O.S.No.60/1970 Bheema had deposed that he was in possession exclusively by virtue of lease and by saying so, he deposed that there was a partition in the family and - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 Shivaling had no right to make claim over the land R.S.No.36. In the said suit, Bheema has given evidence as DW.1 which is marked as Ex.D.1 and repeatedly in the deposition, he has admitted that there was a division of properties in the family and family was got divided and has acted upon. This deposition is corroborated by the documents at Exs.D-2, D-3 and D-5-case diary entries. The properties were divided and Bheema who is father of plaintiffs had obtained half of the share in the properties. Therefore, under these circumstances, Exs.D-13 to D-15 are relevant to prove the fact of there was a partition in the family earlier in the year 1962. 22. Further, in respect of house property is concerned, defendant No.5 and defendant No.7, it is proved that they were working at Bengaluru and out of their earning, they have purchased the property at item No.8 and 9 of ‘B’ schedule properties. The defendant No.5 was working in the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru and defendant No.7 was working as a Site Supervisor at Engineer Products India Limited at Bengaluru. Therefore, it is proved that both defendants No.5 and 7 while they were working at Bengaluru have purchased property at item No.8 and 9 of ‘B’ schedule properties. But the - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 plaintiffs are claiming that these properties are also joint family properties. Therefore, there is no merit found in the contentions taken by the plaintiffs claiming that those properties are also joint family properties. When it is proved that the defendants No.5 and 7 while they were working at Bengaluru as above stated, have purchased properties in their name. Then how it is joint family property, is not proved by the plaintiffs. Further upon considering the ‘B’ schedule properties, the house properties at Sl.No.2 in ‘B’ schedule and item No.4 in ‘B’ schedule were given to the share of Bheema and plaintiff No.2 and other properties are given to the Shivaling and defendants. Therefore, this proves the fact that there was partition in the joint family. This aspect is correctly considered by the trial Court while appreciating evidence on record. 23. Further, the very fact that filing of suit in O.S.No.60/1970 proves the fact that the relationship between Shivaling and Bheema was strained and before that there was partition. Therefore, the dispute between Bheema and Shivaling to make claim over the land bearing R.S.No.36 resulting into filing of O.S. No.60/1970. Though the said suit was dismissed, but the depositions made by Bheema conclusively proved the - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2982 RFA No. 3050 of 2010 fact that there was division in the joint family and all the properties were got divided between the coparceners between Bheema and Shivaling and their respective children. Therefore, all these prove the fact that the family consisting of plaintiffs and defendants did not remain as a joint family and the suit schedule properties did not remain as joint family properties. Therefore, the trial Court has correctly appreciated evidence on record which needs no interference by this Court. Accordingly, I answer point No.1 in the negative and points No.2 and 3 in the affirmative. 24. Accordingly, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.01.2010, passed in O.S.No.8/2004, by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hukkeri. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP para 1 to 17 RKM para 18 to end List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1