- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 100557 OF 2019 (PAR/POS) BETWEEN: 1. GOVINDRADDI S/O. BASAVARADDI SANNAHOMBAL @ HOMOBAL, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MADALLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 2. NAMARADDI S/O. GOVINDARADDI SANNAHOMBAL @ HOMBAL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MADALLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. PRASHANT S.HOSMANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LAXMAWWA W/O. VENKATARADDI SANNAHOMBAL @ HOMBAL, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MADALLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 2. PADMAVATI D/O. VENKARADDI SANNAHOMBAL @ HOMBAL, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: NWKRTC EMPLOYEE, R/O: NWKRTC, DIVISION OFFICE, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.09 11:27:29 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 3. BHARATI W/O. RAVI RANGANNAVAR AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: SARVADAYA COLONY, MULGUND NAKA, DIST: GADAG. 4. HANAMARADDI S/O. VENKARADDI SANNAHOMBAL @ HOMBAL, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MADALLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 5. SAVITRI D/O. VENKARADDI SANNAHOMBAL @ HOMBAL, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: NOW R/AT: SHIDLINGANAGAR, GADAG, DIST: GADAG. 6. BHAGIRATI W/O. GOUDAPPAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: MADALLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 7. VASURADDI S/O. BASAVARADDI SANNAHOMBAL @ HOMBAL, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: EX-SERVICE MAN AND AGRICULTURE, R/O: MADALLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 8. HEMARADDI S/O. BASAVARADDI SANNAHOMBAL @ HOMBAL, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MADALLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 9. MUDARADDI S/O. BASAVARADDI SANNAHOMBAL @ HOMBAL, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MADALLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 10. MANJUNATHRADDI @ SUDHAKARADDI S/O. BASAVARADDI SANNAHOMBAL @ HOMBAL, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MADALLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 11. RENUKA W/O. MANJUNATHRADDI @ SUDHAKARADDI SANNAHOMBAL @ HOMBAL, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MADALLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 12. SUNITA W/O. SRINIVASGOUDA PATIL AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: HAMPIHOLI, TQ: RAMDURGA, DIST: BELAGAVI. 13. KRISHNARADDI S/O. BASAVARADDI SANNAHOMBAL @ HOMBAL, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MADALLI, TQ: SHIRAHATTI, DIST: GADAG. 14. NINGAMMA W/O. DHARAMAPPA RAGIPATTI AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: ANTUR-BENTUR, DIST: GADAG. 15. NAGAPPA S/O. ISHWARAPPA HADAPAD SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES RESPONDENTS NO.16 TO 20. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 16. YALLAPPA S/O. ISHWARAPPA HADAPAD AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BARADWAD, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. 17. VIRUPAXAPPA S/O. ISHWARAPPA HADAPAD AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BARADWAD, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. 18. CHANNAVVA W/O. DEVENDRAPPA HADAPAD AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BARADWAD, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. 19. SHANTAVVA W/O. NINGAPPA HADAPAD AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BARADWAD, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. 20. SAVAKKA D/O. ISHWARAPPA HADAPAD AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BARADWAD, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAXMAN T.MANTAGANI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R7; NOTICE TO R10, 11, 13, 14 AND 16 TO 20 ARE SERVED; R15 -DECEASED) THIS RFA IS FILED UNDER SEC.96 R/W ORDER XLI RULE 1 OF CPC., AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.06.2019 PASSED IN O.S.NO.38/2017 (OLD NO.38/2014) ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, LAXMESHWAR, PARTLY DECREEING THE SUIT FILED FOR PARTITION AND SEPARATE POSSESSION. BARRED BY PERIOD OF LIMITATION. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned appeal is filed by the unsuccessful defendant Nos.2 and 3, who are questioning the preliminary decree dated 18.06.2019 passed in O.S.No.38/2017 (old No.38/2014) the Senior Civil Judge And Judicial Magistrate First Class, Laxmeshwar wherein the plaintiffs suit seeking the relief of partition and separate possession is decreed and plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 jointly allotted 1/7th share and plaintiff No.7 jointly is allotted 1/7th share in all the suit schedule properties. The said preliminary decree is under challenge. 2. Before we proceed to examine the rival contentions, we deem it appropriate to take cognizance of the family tree, which is as under: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 Propositus Basavaraddi died on 16.7.1988 =Smt. Venkamma died on 6.8.2012 Venkaraddi Hemaraddi Govind- Muda- Vasuraddi Manjunath Krishna- (died on (D-1) raddi raddi (P-7) raddi raddi 31.1.18 (D-2) (D-4) (D-5) (D-8) Laxmavva =Renuka (D-6) (P-1) Namaraddi (D-3) Sunita (D-7) Padmavati Bharati Hanamaraddi Savitri Bhagiragi (P-2) (P-3) (P-4) (P-5) (P-6) 3. Plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 are widow and children of one Venkaraddi, who is the eldest son of propositus Basavaraddi. Plaintiff No.7 is the son of the said propositus Basavaraddi. Therefore, the legal heirs of Venkaraddi along with plaintiff No.7 have instituted the present suit by contending that item Nos.1 and 2 are ancestral joint family properties and item Nos.3, to 5, which are purchased by defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 are also joint family ancestral properties. The plaintiffs are asserting that item Nos.3 to 5 properties were purchased from the joint family income and therefore, these properties are to be dealt with as ancestral properties. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 for their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties. The present suit is filed alleging that though there is no severance by metes and bounds, and the family members are residing separately in view of the strained relationship among the women folk in the family, the defendants are attempting to alienate the suit schedule properties only to defeat the plaintiffs’ legitimate right in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs have also specifically alleged that this attempt of alienate is in the absence of any family necessity to the plaintiffs and defendants family. The present suit is filed by specifically pleading that, in spite of repeated requests to allot their legitimate share in the suit schedule properties, the defendants are threatening to alienate the properties, if the plaintiffs go on insisting to grant a share in the properties. Hence, this suit. 4. On receipt of summons, defendant Nos.2 and 3 along with defendant No.9 who is joint purchaser of item No.3 have filed written statement stoutly denying the entire averments made in the plaint. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 on the contrary, claimed that there is already a partition - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 in the family, which is averred at paragraph 10 of the written statement. At paragraph 14 of the written statement, defendant Nos.2 and 3 have asserted that item Nos.4 and 5 were admittedly owned by father of defendant Nos.10 to 12 and 15, who refused to conclude the agreement to sell by receiving balance sale consideration and this prompted defendant Nos.2 and 3 to file a suit for specific performance of contract in O.S.No.100/1997, which came to be decreed on 28.11.1998. Therefore, defendant Nos.2 and 3 contended that plaintiffs and other defendants are not having any title and interest over item Nos.4 and 5 properties. On these set of defence, defendant Nos.2 and 3 sought for dismissal of the suit. 5. Based on the rival pleadings, the trial court formulated the issues and additional issue. The plaintiffs and defendant Nos.2 and 3 let in oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their respective claim. The trial court having examined the rebuttal evidence let in by the defendants, answered issue Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative holding that the plaintiffs have succeeded in proving that - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties. The trial court while answering additional issue in the affirmative, held that defendant No.9 who is the joint purchaser of item No.3 is owner to an extent of 3 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.20/1 (item No.3). Therefore, the trial court held that 3 acres 20 guntas is self-acquired property of defendant No.9, who is admittedly not related to the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 8. Consequently, the suit is decreed granting 1/7th share jointly to plaintiff Nos.1 to 6 and 1/7th share jointly to plaintiff No.7. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos.2 and 3 and the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs. 7. We have given our anxious consideration to the pleadings of both the parties. We have also meticulously examined the oral and documentary evidence let in by both the parties, more particularly, the rebuttal evidence let in by defendant Nos.2 and 3. We have also given our anxious consideration to the application filed under Order - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 41 Rule 27 of CPC seeking production of additional documents. Under these applications, the defendants have now sought leave of the court to place reliance on an unregistered partition deed dated 16.07.2001 and the written statement filed by defendant No.4 in O.S.No.40/2019. This written statement is filed by defendant No.1/Hemaraddi in O.S.No.40/2019. Similarly, one more written statement along with other RTC’s are also produced by way of additional evidence and relief is sought relying on these additional evidence. 8. Having independently assessed the oral and documentary evidence, the following points would arise for our consideration: 1) Whether the finding of the trial court that the suit schedule properties are joint family ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 8 suffers from infirmities and warrant interference? - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 2) Whether the finding of the trial court that defendant Nos.2 and 3 have failed to substantiate that item Nos.3, 4 and 5 are self-acquired properties suffers from serious infirmity and is contrary to the rebuttal evidence let in by defendant Nos.2 to 7? 3) Whether defendant No.2 has made out a case to admit the additional evidence on record? Finding on point Nos.1 and 2. 9. The records indicate that the widow and children of the eldest son, Venkaraddi, along with the fourth son, Vasureddi, have instituted the present suit asserting that the suit schedule properties constitute joint family ancestral properties. It is undisputed that item Nos. 1 and 2 fall within the ambit of such ancestral properties. However, the primary contention revolves around item Nos. 4 and 5. The documents on record show that defendant No. 2 had entered into an agreement with the late Ishwarappa father of defendant Nos. 10 to 12 - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 agreeing to purchase item Nos. 4 and 5 for a consideration of Rs. 1,31,400/-. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 assert that these properties were acquired by defendant No. 2 through his independent income and, as such, claim item Nos. 3, 4, and 5 to be their self-acquired properties. Additionally, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have taken a plea of a prior partition. However, the plea of prior partition is not clearly substantiated, as the pleadings in paragraph 10 of the written statement are vague. We find it appropriate to extract paragraph 10 of the written statement for consideration, which reads as follows: “10. It is submitted that the oral partition was taken place between the plaintiffs and defendants and accordingly who were in possession and using the same for carrying their livelihood. So same fact is suppressed from this Hon’ble court by the plaintiffs.” 10. Insofar as item No.3 is concerned, there is absolutely no pleading as to how this item No.3 property was acquired by defendant Nos.1 to 3 and 5 to an extent of half share. Insofar as item Nos.4 and 5 are concerned, defendant No.2 has elaborately narrated in para 14 as to - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 how this property was acquired by instituting a suit in O.S.No.100/1997. This court deems it fit to cull out the relevant portion of paragraph 14, which reads as under: “It is submitted by the Defendant no 2, for grace consideration by this Hon'ble is that the Defendant no 2 and one late Iswarappa Irappa Hadapad who was the father of the Defendants No 10 to 12 and 15 were entered into an agreement for sale of the land bearing servey No 19/1 measuring 10 acres 12 guntas out of which 6 acres 12 guntas and touching other Agricultural land bearing servy no 19/2 measuirng 10 acres 05 guntas both are situated at Baradwad villge of kundgol Taluk for sale consideration of Rs. 1.31,400/-. Thereafter the father of Defendants No 10 to 12 and 15 was refused to execute the register sale deed in favour of the Defendants no 2 and on that negative attitude of the father of the Defendants No 10 to 12 and 15 caused act and challenged by the Defendant No 2 before the Hon'ble Court Additional Civil Judge Senior Division Hubli at Hubli in O.S.NO. 100/1997 for Specific Performance of contract and later on said Hon'ble court has Decreed the suit on 28.11.1998 pertaining to the suit properties only described at iv and v of the 'A 'Suit Scheduled Landed Properties. Further it is submitted by the Defendants No 2 is that the deceased Father of the Defendant No 10 to 12 and 15 was preferred an R S A NO.79/1999 to the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka Bangalore. After heard by the Lordships were dismissed the RSA by confirming the Lower Court Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No. 100/1997 on 28.11.1998. Further it is submitted that on the base of the Decree passed in O. S. No. 100/1997 the Defendant No 2 had filed the Execution Petition No. 332/2007 on the file of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge Hubli At:Hubli for the relief mentioned therein, and now for more clear those are described in Plaint at Suit Scheduled "A" landed properties under Serial No IV and V. Further it is submitted by the Defendant No 2 is that the Defendants no 10 to 15 and others concerned were filed the suit no. 67/2006 on the file of the Hon'ble Principal Senior Civil judge Hubli at Hubli claiming their rights over the other properties mentioned there in and also including the Suit scheduled properties described as "A" under the serial No iv and v and for other reliefs. - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 After that said Hon'ble Principal Civil Judge Senior Court Hubli at Hubli were dismissed the suit by confirming the title and ownership and possession of the Defendant No 2 extent to the land of mentioned in plaint of present suit scheduled "A" property under the serial no IV and V. After that these Defendants were aggrieved from the said judgment and Decree against which were preferred An Regular Appeal No. 132/2011 filed on the Court of the Hon'ble 1st Additional District and Session Judge Hubli At: Hubli same is pending as on today and in which the Defendant No 2 appeared and take the proceedings. Further it is submitted that on base of the submission made by this Defendant No 2(Decree Holder In Ex Case No 332/2007) the Hon'ble 1 Additional Senior Civil Judge Hubli was closed the execution Petition as fully satisfied and put him into possession and with title by executing the register sale deed by appointed court commission. By order of that Hon'ble court the Defendant no 2 become complete absolute, lawfully owner and possession of the suit property and it is well known to the Plaintiffs and other defendants and Defendants no 10 to 15 were not preferred any appeal against the execution Petition and other Orders from competent court of Law and it is attained the finality. It is important submission that Plaintiffs and other Defendants are not concerned and no title and interest and whatsoever over the suit properties described in Plaint at "A" Scheduled under the same at Serial No IV and V and those become the self acquired property of the Defendant no 2.” 11. .Although there are absolutely no pleadings specifically addressing any severance or partition within the family with respect to item Nos. 1 and 2, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have nonetheless attempted to set up a plea of prior partition. However, this plea lacks substantiation. During the course of evidence, defendants Nos. 2 and 3 have not produced any documentary evidence to demonstrate that there was a prior partition in the family - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 that led to a severance of the joint family status. The assertion of partition remains unsupported by any registered documents, revenue records, or other corroborative material. Consequently, the claim of prior partition, particularly in relation to item Nos. 1 and 2 properties already acknowledged to be ancestral and joint family in natureremains unproven and unsubstantiated. This casts serious doubt on the credibility of the alleged partition. 12. With respect to the purchase of land in Sy. No. 20/1, the records reflect that defendants Nos. 1 to 3 have collectively purchased an extent of 3 acres and 20 guntas. Alongside them, defendant No. 9 who is admittedly unrelated to both the plaintiffs and the other defendants has independently purchased an equal extent of 3 acres and 20 guntas. Further, it is noted that item No. 3 was purchased by defendants Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 under three separate sale deeds. However, none of these defendants have provided satisfactory proof to establish that they possessed independent financial means or a separate - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 source of income at the time of these transactions. In the absence of any credible evidence demonstrating the financial independence of these defendants, their claim that item No. 3 is a self-acquired property becomes highly questionable. 13. As for item No. 3, there are also no specific pleadings explaining the circumstances under which the property was acquired or the source of funds utilized for the purchase. Similarly, in relation to item Nos. 4 and 5, although there is reference to an agreement entered into by defendant No. 2 with the predecessors of defendant Nos. 10 to 12, there are no clear pleadings or documentary materials detailing how defendant No. 2 arranged the funds to offer a purchase under the said agreement and ultimately obtain a decree. It is only during the trial that defendant No. 2 makes a rather weak and belated attempt to explain the source of funds. He contends that he was able to mobilize an amount of Rs. 84,000/- from his in-laws, particularly through one Hosamani, i.e., D.W.2, who is identified as his father-in- - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 law. This explanation surfaces for the first time during the trial and lacks prior pleading support. 14. Given the circumstances, the testimony of D.W.2 becomes critical for assessing whether such a substantial amount was indeed paid by him to defendant No. 2 for the purpose of purchasing item Nos. 4 and 5 under the said agreement. The relevant portion of the deposition of D.W.2 is extracted and reproduced hereunder for careful consideration. “4. gÀÆ. 65,000/- UÀ¼À£ÀÄß J°èAzÀ vÀAzÀÄ PÉÆqÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ JAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ®è. £À£Àß CtÚ vÀªÀÄäA¢gÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÀÝgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¤RgÀªÁV UÉÆwÛ®è. ¸ÀévÀB £Á£ÀÄ gÀÆ. 40,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄîÌAqÀ SÁvÉ £ÀA§¤ðAzÀ vÉUɹ vÀAzÀÄ PÉÆnÖzÉÝãÉ. DV£À ¥Á¸À§ÄPÀ FUÀ £À£Àß §½ E®è. UÉÆëAzÀgÉrØAiÀĪÀjUÉ £ÁªÉ®ègÀÆ ¸ÉÃj gÀÆ.65,000/- ºÀtªÀ£ÀÄß d«ÄãÀÄ Rjâ¸À®Ä PÉÆnÖzÉÝêÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀļÀÄî ºÉüÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉAzÀgÉ ¸ÀjAiÀÄ®è.” 15. Upon a close reading of the extracted testimony of D.W.2, it becomes evidently clear that he has failed to provide any credible or concrete details regarding the alleged mobilization of Rs.84,000/-, which defendant No.2 claims to have received for the purpose of purchasing item Nos. 4 and 5. D.W.2's evidence remains vague and lacks the specificity expected in such financial transactions. - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 Moreover, on a careful examination of Exhibit D6, which is a passbook belonging to Anandraddi, another son of defendant No.2, certain key inconsistencies come to light. The passbook reflects a deposit of Rs.35,000/- on 12.07.2000 and a subsequent withdrawal of the same amount on 27.07.2000. 16. Upon a meticulous review of this document, we are compelled to hold that the entries are likely fabricated to support the defense narrative, as they appear to be an afterthought. Defendant No.2 has offered no plausible explanation regarding the circumstances under which this sum was deposited in his son’s account on 12.07.2000 and withdrawn shortly thereafter. Furthermore, apart from these two significant entries, the passbook reveals only nominal deposits, often in the range of Rs.50/- to Rs.100/- and in no case exceeding Rs.1,000/-. This pattern severely undermines the credibility of the alleged Rs.35,000/- deposit. - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 17. An even more critical observation is the timing of this deposit. The agreement to purchase item Nos. 4 and 5 was entered into by defendant No.2 on 27.03.1992, while the disputed deposit in question occurred nearly eight years later in 2000. Thus, the deposit in Anandraddi’s account cannot be said to have any connection either proximate or remote with the purchase transaction or the decree subsequently obtained by defendant No.2 in O.S.No.100/1997. Accordingly, this financial transaction cannot aid defendant No.2 in establishing that he independently mobilized funds to purchase item Nos. 4 and 5, either at the time of entering into the agreement or at the time of fulfilling the terms of the decree for specific performance. 18. While it is well settled in law that there is no presumption that a Hindu joint family possesses property, the plaintiffs in the present case have succeeded in establishing that the joint family indeed possessed sufficient resources and assets. The record clearly demonstrates that item Nos. 1 and 2 are irrigated lands, - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 which have the capacity to generate substantial agricultural income. This finding shifts the burden onto defendant No.2 to prove that the funds utilized for the purchase of item Nos. 3, 4, and 5 were not drawn from the joint family corpus. 19. Notably, defendant No.2 has failed to discharge this burden. There is an absolute lack of any evidence documentary or oral that could establish that he had an independent source of income at the relevant time. Additionally, the written statement of defendant No.2 does not contain any pleadings suggesting or outlining his independent earnings. 20. The court also takes judicial notice of the fact that the eldest son, Venkaraddi, was employed with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), and plaintiff No.7 was serving in the Indian Military. These significant facts reflect the broader financial condition of the family and lend support to the plaintiffs’ assertion that the ancestral agricultural lands were indeed being - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 managed by the male coparceners, namely defendant Nos.1 to 5 and 8. These individuals had access to and control over the income generated from the joint family properties. 21. In this context, the onus lay heavily upon defendant No.2 to demonstrate that the acquisition of item Nos. 3 to 5 was made exclusively from his personal earnings and without recourse to the joint family assets. However, in the absence of specific pleadings and in light of the complete failure to produce corroborative documentary evidence, defendant No.2 has not been able to rebut the plaintiffs’ claim. Therefore, it stands established that item Nos. 3 to 5 were purchased from and with the aid of the joint family nucleus. 22. In the present case, the plaintiffs have successfully established the existence of ancestral properties and have demonstrated that such properties formed the nucleus of the joint family. Through both pleadings and evidence, the plaintiffs have proved the - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 jointness of the family, encompassing the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1 to 8. The plaintiffs have also succeeded in showing that the ancestral properties specifically item Nos. 1 and 2 are irrigated lands that were capable of generating income and thereby constituted a sufficient financial nucleus. 23. In the absence of any rebuttal evidence from the defendants, and given that the defendants have failed to prove independent income or any break in the joint family status, this Court is constrained to conclude that the acquisitions in question namely item Nos. 3 to 5 must be presumed to have been made from the joint family funds. Accordingly, both Point No.1 and Point No.2 are answered in the negative, as the defendants have not discharged the burden placed upon them to prove otherwise. Finding on point No.3. 24. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings contained in the written statement, this Court is of the - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 considered view that the additional documents now sought to be produced by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be admitted or taken on record. It is a well-established principle in law, reiterated through a consistent line of judicial precedents, that documentary evidence cannot be looked into unless it is supported by appropriate pleadings. Courts have time and again emphasized that any documentary material introduced at a belated stage, especially in the absence of foundational pleadings, cannot be considered, particularly when such documents do not go to the root of the matter or bear no material relevance to the lis involved. 25. In the present case, paragraph 14 of the written statement, which has already been extracted and considered above, clearly indicates that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have set up a plea of oral partition. However, by way of the present application seeking to adduce additional evidence, these defendants now attempt to introduce documents that take a contradictory stand, - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 suggesting the existence of a written partition, which is inconsistent with their own earlier pleadings. 26. Learned counsel appearing for defendant Nos. 2 and 3 has attempted to argue that the document in question is merely a memorandum of partition and not a formal partition deed, and thus is admissible despite being unregistered. However, this Court is not inclined to accept such a contention. A plain and careful reading of the preamble of the document clearly reveals that the document does not merely record a past event of partition, but purports to effect a partition by metes and bounds among the parties. This characteristic is indicative of a partition deed, not a memorandum of an already completed partition. Since the document seeks to create or declare rights over immovable property, and being unregistered, it offends the provisions of the Registration Act, thereby rendering it inadmissible in evidence. 27. Moreover, the attempt to introduce such a document in the absence of any prior pleadings regarding - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 a written partition further militates against the principles of fair adjudication. The judicial process cannot permit a party to improve or alter their case midway through litigation by introducing documents that fundamentally change their stance. Therefore, we are of the firm view that the said document being both unregistered and unsupported by pleadings cannot be taken into account, and accordingly, its production is rejected. 28. In a similar vein, the written statement filed by defendant No.4 cannot be relied upon to defeat or non-suit the claims of the plaintiffs. In the written statement of defendant No.4, there appears to be a pleading suggesting the existence of an oral partition within the family. However, it is a well-settled position in law that admissions, to be binding, must be both clear and conclusive, and such admissions are binding only upon the party who has made them. 29. In the present case, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are seeking to rely on the pleadings made by defendant No.4 - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 in another suit, with the intention of using them as admissions against the plaintiffs. This strategy is impermissible in law. Pleadings made by one defendant in a different proceeding or even within the same suit cannot be read as admissions against a third party, particularly when such pleadings are not adopted or accepted by the plaintiffs. Therefore, any statement made by defendant No.4, even if suggestive of a prior oral partition, does not bind the plaintiffs and cannot be used by other defendants to defeat the plaintiffs’ case. 30. Furthermore, this Court is of the view that the additional documents now sought to be introduced by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 do not satisfy the statutory requirements under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For a document to be admitted at the appellate stage, it must meet specific criteria i.e., either the evidence was not within the knowledge of the party despite due diligence, or the appellate court requires such evidence to pronounce judgment effectively. In the present case, neither of these conditions is satisfied. - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 31. Even assuming for a moment that the documents were otherwise admissible, this Court finds that they are not essential for a just and effective adjudication of the core dispute between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 8. The controversy has been comprehensively dealt with based on the existing pleadings and evidence already available on record. The belated attempt to introduce these documents appears to be an afterthought and does not merit judicial consideration. 32. Accordingly, in light of the above discussion, the additional documents sought to be introduced by defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are rejected, and Point No.3 is answered in the negative. 33. For the forgoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) No order as to the costs. - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4702-DB RFA No. 100557 of 2019 In view dismissal of the appeal, pending I.A’s, if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE MBS Ct:VH