SHIVASHANKAR BHAT, J. ( 1 ) APPEAL is by the 2nd defendant in the suit. Respondents 1 to 4 herein were the plaintiffs. The 1st defendant died during the pendency of the suit. Parties are referred hereinafter with reference to their respective ranking in the trial Court. ( 2 ) UNDISPUTED facts are : m. C. Chikkananjundappa was the father of the 1st plaintiff; and defendants 1, 2 and 3 is referred hereinafter as MCC. MCC had a wife Pillamma, who died in the year 1930; 1st defendant was the daughter of MCC through this wife. Another wife of MCC was Doddabasamma, who died on 26-1-1983; through her MCC had two sons (Plaintiff No. 1 and the 3rd defendant and a daughter, the 2nd defendant ). The 1st defendant, though married, lived in her parental house, leaving her husband. Fate of the 2nd defendant has been the same; within a few days of the marriage of 2nd defendant, her husband left her and thereafter she has been living with her parents. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the children of 1st plaintiff. Defendants 4 to 7 are the children of the 3rd defendant. MCC died on 24-1-1972. 1st defendant died on 25-3-1986, without any issues. ( 3 ) IMMEDIATELY after the death of Doddabasamma, dispute must have arisen between the parties, because suit was filed in February 1983. According to the plaintiffs immovable properties described in schedules A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 are joint family properties, partible amongst the shares. Accordingly, the branch of 1st plaintiff and 3rd defendant are entitled to share the properties equally. The 2nd defendant was gifted with the immovable property described in schedule 'b' to the plaint during the lifetime of MCC and therefore she was not entitled to claim any share. Defendant No. 1 was leading a life of a sanyasi and hence her right to a share was also denied in the plaint. Plaint schedules 'c', 'd' E and 'f' contain the partible movables, furniture, jewelleries, silver articles and Bank Deposits. The plaint refers to a 'will' executed by MCC (marked Ex. P 1 in the suit) in the year 1957, by which he purported to effect partition of the properties amongst his children. ( 4 ) PLAINTIFFS rely on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in M. N. Aryamurthi v. M. L. Subbaraya Setty (dead) by his L. Rs. The plaint refers to a 'will' executed by MCC (marked Ex. P 1 in the suit) in the year 1957, by which he purported to effect partition of the properties amongst his children. ( 4 ) PLAINTIFFS rely on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in M. N. Aryamurthi v. M. L. Subbaraya Setty (dead) by his L. Rs. , AIR 1972 SC 1279 and contend that the said document was invalid and that it was never acted upon. ( 5 ) DEFENDANTS 2 and 3 filed a common written statement. They asserted that there was already a partition in the family and parties were residing separately; and they were also separate in food and worship. As to jewellery with Doddabasamma, it was alleged as belonging to her as Stridhana, which she gifted to 2nd defendant during the lifetime of Doddabasamma. Having regard to the question involved in this Appeal, we don't think it necessary to summarise the respective pleadings in detail. However it is necessary to note that in this written statement it was asserted that jewels and silver articles described in Annexure 'a' to the written statement belonged to 2nd defendant, given to her at the time of her marriage and those described in Annexure 'b' given to 2nd defendant by Doddabasamma by way of gift, Annexure 'c' described the jewels and silver articles acquired by the 2nd defendant out of her income. Annexure 'd' to this written statement detailed the Bank Deposits and Accounts and it was asserted that these monies belonged to 2nd defendant absolutely. ( 6 ) ISSUES framed and considered by the trial Court were as follows :-" (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the plaintiff and defendants constitute a co-parcenery and joint family ? (2) Whether the suit schedule properties are the co-parcenery and joint family properties ? (3) Whether the defendants prove that there has been a partition between them ? (4) Whether the partition alleged under the registered will dated 30-10-57 executed by Sri Chickananjundappa is invalid, and is not binding on the parties ? (5) Whether the 2nd defendant is not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties in view of the gift of the 'b' schedule properties on 16-11-1966 ? (6) Whether the 2nd defendant proves that the gold and silver jewellery in Annexure 'a' of the written statement came to her during her marriage ? (5) Whether the 2nd defendant is not entitled to any share in the suit schedule properties in view of the gift of the 'b' schedule properties on 16-11-1966 ? (6) Whether the 2nd defendant proves that the gold and silver jewellery in Annexure 'a' of the written statement came to her during her marriage ? (7) Whether the gold and silver jewellery mentioned in Annexure 'b' of the written statement were gifted to defendant No. 2 by her mother ? (8) Whether defendant No. 2 proves that the gold and silver articles mentioned in Annexure 'c' of the written statement were acquired by her earnings ? (9) Whether the 2nd defendant proves that the amounts in the state Bank of Mysore, Basavanagudi and Shankarapuram branches mentioned in Annexure-D and E of the written statement belong exclusively to her ? (10) Whether the 2nd defendant proves that the share in the moveables mentioned in the plaint, including the articles mentioned in the inventory and also stated in Annexure 'a' to 'h' of the written statement, including the jewellery found in the bank locker ? (11) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a share in the bank deposits mentioned in Annexure 'd' and 'e' of the written statement standing in the name of Doddabasamma Meenakshamma ? (12) Whether the Court fee paid is sufficient ? (13) To what share the Plaintiff is entitled to and in which of the properties ? (14) To what decree ?" ( 7 ) TRIAL Court held that 1st defendant being a Sanyasi, and she having not made any claim in the suit, was not entitled to any share. Since 2nd defendant was given the immoveable property at the time of her marriage in the year 1966, she cannot claim any share in the suit. Under Ex. P1 there was no partition and it was not a valid will. (In fact, none of the parties relied on Ex. P1 with any seriousness on this aspect of it being a will or effecting a partition ). Except a few small items of moveables (including jewels) and a Bank Account, all the remaining properties were held as belonging to the family, in which plaintiffs are entitled to one half share and defendants from 3 to 7, the other half. P1 with any seriousness on this aspect of it being a will or effecting a partition ). Except a few small items of moveables (including jewels) and a Bank Account, all the remaining properties were held as belonging to the family, in which plaintiffs are entitled to one half share and defendants from 3 to 7, the other half. ( 8 ) HENCE this appeal by the 2nd defendant, contending that, her right to the properties, as an heir to her parents cannot be taken away by the earlier gift of a property at the time of her marriage and that the articles claimed by her in her written statement belong to her and not available for partition. ( 9 ) BROADLY the following questions arise for consideration :1. Is not 2nd defendant entitled to any share in the partible properties, by virtue of the gift of property at the time of her marriage ? 2. To what shares, parties are entitled to in the partibles properties ? 3. Is 2nd defendant justified in her claim to the various moveables, etc. as pleaded in the written statement ? ( 10 ) THE first question is whether, 2nd defendant is not entitled to any share in the family properties. According to the plaintiffs, 2nd defendant was gifted with the property described in 'b' schedule to the plaint by MCC, and therefore, she is not entitled to any share in the joint family property. According to the 2nd defendant, on her father's death and subsequently on her mother's death, she was entitled to succeed to their interest in the joint family properties, as per the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. Under this Act, she is one of the heirs and would rank equally with other children of MCC. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, the question, is whether, an earlier gift of property by the father to a daughter would result in depriving the right of the daughter as an heir of her father and mother, to claim a share in the interest left by them. Admittedly, MCC was a big contractor; he was also running a soap factory; he was getting huge rentals from various houses. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that, MCC had his own self earnings from which he would have acquired properties, some of which he gifted to his daughter, the 2nd defendant. Admittedly, MCC was a big contractor; he was also running a soap factory; he was getting huge rentals from various houses. Therefore, it is reasonable to infer that, MCC had his own self earnings from which he would have acquired properties, some of which he gifted to his daughter, the 2nd defendant. The gift deed is not marked in evidence; its validity is not attacked in any manner. Assuming it was a joint family property, even then, the gift cannot be ignored, because, a Kartha of a Hindu joint family has a right to gift a small property to the daughter at the time of her marriage. Gift is of the year 1966, the year of the marriage of 2nd defendant. (She was married on 18-12-1966 as is evident from Ex. P6, the copy of the marriage invitation card ). P. W. 1, also says that the property was gifted to 2nd defendant at the time of her marriage (para 9 of his deposition ). ( 12 ) RIGHT of succession is regulated by Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This right, in no way, is made conditional upon the heir not receiving any gift of any property during the lifetime of the father or the mother. Right of succession under this Act is absolute (subject to any Will that may have been left by the deceased ). There is no scope to introduce any anterior principle of Hindu Law restricting such a right to inherit. ( 13 ) MR. Gurulingappa, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, contended that it is a principle of Hindu Law that a female who was the donee of a gift of a family property, cannot claim a right of inheritance subsequently and seek a share in the family property. It is unnecessary for us to examine the correctness of this principle. Here, 2nd defendant claims a right under Hindu Succession Act, 1956; she is one of the enumerated heirs of her father, as well as of her mother. Her right to succeed to the interests of her parents is absolute; she is entitled to claim an equal share along with other children of her parents. This statutory right cannot be defeated by induction of any alleged principle of Hindu Law. The trial Court is not justified in negativing the right of 2nd defendant. Her right to succeed to the interests of her parents is absolute; she is entitled to claim an equal share along with other children of her parents. This statutory right cannot be defeated by induction of any alleged principle of Hindu Law. The trial Court is not justified in negativing the right of 2nd defendant. Question of any Equity does not arise to construe and apply the clear provisions of Hindu Succession Act 1956. ( 14 ) CONSEQUENTLY we hold that the 2nd defendant is entitled to a share in the properties, in which her parents had an interest each, at the time of their death. ( 15 ) NEXT question pertains to the quantum of share, for the purpose of partitioning the joint family properties. RE : SHARES ( 16 ) MYSORE Hindu Law Women's Right Act 1933 does not envisage a share to the wife of a person, at a partition between that person and his sons. S. 8 (1) (a) provided a share to the mother of that person and the widows and unmarried daughters of his predeceased undivided sons and brothers who have left no male issue. The crucial term to identify the others who are entitled to a share is "a person" stated in S. 8 (1) (a); the relationship emanates from that person. Therefore, at a partition between MCC and his sons, if mother of MCC were to be alive she would have been allotted with a share. The idea behind S. 8 (1) (a) is quite clear in this regard. Even otherwise, the moment, Hindu Succession Act 1956 came into force, the Mysore Act referred above ceased to be operative as held by this Court in T. M. Channabasamma, by L. R. Annapurnamma v. Rudriah T. M. , by L. R. Veeramma, ILR 1982 (1) Kar 98 : (AIR 1982 Kant 198 ). ( 17 ) THEREFORE on 24-1-1972, when MCC died, if a partition is deemed under Sec. 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the persons entitled to a share in the joint family property would be MCC and his two sons and MCC would have been allotted 1/3rd share in the joint family properties. This 1/3rd share would, in turn devolve equally on his widow and children. This 1/3rd share would, in turn devolve equally on his widow and children. In other words, Doddabasamma, Sharadamma, plaintiff No. 1, 2nd defendant and defendant No. 3 each would get 1/5th in this 1/3rd interest of MCC. Doddabasamma died on 26-1-1983, leaving behind four children of MCC out of whom Sharadamma was a daughter through another wife. But Sharadamma died on 25-3-1986 and her interest, in turn devolved on plaintiff No. 1, 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant equally. Therefore, it does not matter whether Sharadamma inherited a share in the interest left by Doddabasamma, or not. For all practical purposes, as on today, court can proceed to calculate the shares in respect of the 1/3rd interest left by MCC, as if, those three persons are equally entitled to it, which will be 1/9th in the entire property. Therefore, in the entire joint family property, the shares of these persons will be : plaintiff No. 1 and her children : 1/3 + 1/9 = 4/9 defendant No. 2 : 1/9 defendant No. 3 and his children : 4/9 ( 18 ) MR. Gurulingappa contended that in view of the written statement of 2nd defendant, she cannot claim any share. 2nd defendant has pleaded that family properties had been partitioned during the lifetime of MCC, under a Will-cum-Partition deed and the parties are not entitled to seek fresh partition. The plaintiffs have REFERRED TO this document (and its copy is marked as Ex. P. 1) and stated that this document was neither acted upon, nor could be acted upon and this was an invalid document. Plaint refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in M. N. Aryamurthi v. M. L. Subba Raya Setty (dead) By His Legal Representatives, AIR 1972 SC 1279 . ( 19 ) WE concur with the finding of the trial court that there was no partition of joint family properties during the lifetime of MCC and the original of Ex. P. 1 was not acted upon. It cannot be a valid will because, the testator could not have willed away the joint family properties. The decision REFERRED TO above fully supports the plaint-case. In fact, the learned counsel for both sides proceeded, before us, on the assumption that there was no valid will and there was no partition of the joint family immoveables. It cannot be a valid will because, the testator could not have willed away the joint family properties. The decision REFERRED TO above fully supports the plaint-case. In fact, the learned counsel for both sides proceeded, before us, on the assumption that there was no valid will and there was no partition of the joint family immoveables. ( 20 ) PARTIES go to trial on the basis of their respective pleadings and the issues framed thereunder. Ultimately the facts found by the court may be contrary to the facts pleaded by one of the contesting parties. In such a situation, the said party cannot be deprived of his or her rights, flowing out of the proved facts. Further the relief to be granted to the plaintiffs, here, will be, on the basis of their claim in the plaint to the effect that there has been no earlier partition. All consequences, flowing out of the basic case found by the court shall have to be taken note of and effect ought to be given to such a finding. Second defendant has put forth a legal plea that there was a partition earlier by virtue of the will during the father's lifetime. If this plea fails, she cannot be penalised by depriving her of her due share in the properties. She can seek her share at any time before the final decree is made. ( 21 ) THIS is essentially a suit for partition. Therefore, failure of 2nd defendant to claim a share cannot defeat her right to the share. ( 22 ) IN Bhimappa Govindappa v. Kamalawwa Kom Dharemappa (1966 (1) Mys LJ 1) this court held, at p. 10 :"it is true that defendant 3 did not file a written statement in the trial court. She has not filed any appeal or cross-objections and did not put forward her claim for a share at any stage before this application. But it is well settled that in a suit for partition, the court can pass a decree in favour of any of the parties entitled to a share before the final decree is made, and as far as possible, such party should not be driven to the necessity of filing another suit. " ( 23 ) CONSEQUENTLY we hold that the 2nd defendant is entitled to 1/9th share in the joint family immoveables. " ( 23 ) CONSEQUENTLY we hold that the 2nd defendant is entitled to 1/9th share in the joint family immoveables. To remove any doubt, we reiterate that the property described in Sch. 'b' to the plaint is the exclusive property of 2nd defendant and other members have no right in it. Re. Bank Deposits : ( 24 ) THERE are several fixed deposits standing in the name of Doddabasamma and second defendant; similarly savings Bank accounts. The amounts are claimed as of the joint family in the plaint. The trial court has held that term deposits totalling of Rs. 35,000/- in State bank of Mysore, Basavangudi Branch and term deposits totalling Rs. 24,000/- in State Bank of Mysore, Shankarapuram Branch, both sets standing in the name of Doddabasamma and the 2nd defendant are partible as joint family property; to these the joint savings account as shown in Exs. P. 17 and P. 18 are also added as partible. The amount standing in cumulative deposit account No. 4/2412 which is Rs. 6,500/-, is held as belonging to the 2nd defendant. ( 25 ) THE finding that the abovesaid cumulative deposit belongs to 2nd defendant is not challenged and accordingly it is held as belonging to her absolutely. However, 2nd defendant has questioned the decree regarding other amounts kept in term deposits and savings accounts. According to her, these belong to her and her mother, and on her mother's death, she is entitled to these amounts as the sole survivor. ( 26 ) THE Bank's letter Ex. P. 19 says that the Term Deposits with Basavangudi Branch (of various dates in the year 1985), were being renewed since the year 1972. Similar is the position regarding the Savings account and cumulative deposit account with the said branch. Ex. P. 22 is a similar letter of the Bank's Shankarapuram branch; but it does not say since when these deposits were being held. It gives the particulars of four TDRs totalling Rs. 24,000/ -. ( 27 ) MCC died in January 1972. According to the plaintiffs, the eldest member in the family thereafter was Doddabasamma, the widow of MCC. She was managing the affairs of the family. MCC had left cash, which, Doddabasamma kept in the Banks; while doing so, the deposits were made joint in the names of Doddabasamma and the 2nd defendant. Doddabasamma had no income of her own. According to the plaintiffs, the eldest member in the family thereafter was Doddabasamma, the widow of MCC. She was managing the affairs of the family. MCC had left cash, which, Doddabasamma kept in the Banks; while doing so, the deposits were made joint in the names of Doddabasamma and the 2nd defendant. Doddabasamma had no income of her own. Income from 'b' schedule property, to the 2nd defendant was insufficient to save so much cash, as are reflected in the deposits. ( 28 ) THERE is no dispute that MCC was a contractor. He had a soap factory, machineries of which he had sold. He was receiving a large rentals from the buildings owned by him. After the death of MCC, his wife Doddabasamma was representing the family and was looking after its affairs; as is evident from Ex. P. 23, which is a House Rent Control proceedings in HRC. 2051/82 in the court of Small Causes, Bangalore City. Doddabasamma filed an eviction petition against a tenant seeking possession of the first floor leased to the tenant, on the ground that she has been residing with her two sons and their large families and that that ground floor was not sufficient for their residence. P. W. 1 (1st, plaintiff), at para 10 of his deposition asserts that his mother was managing the affairs of the family after his father's death. However there has been separate mess, though, all of them were residing in the same building; in para 22 of his deposition, he states that his mother was transacting the Bank accounts after his father's death, and name of 2nd defendant was added 3 or 4 years after the father's death. The soap factory was closed about 4 years prior to his father's death. His father was an Income-tax assessee. According to him, his father got about Rs. 3 lakhs by the sale of the factory. He admits that a part of 'b' schedule property gifted to 2nd defendant was acquired for road formation and the 2nd defendant received compensation for it, but P. W. 1 does not know the amount received by 2nd defendant. ( 29 ) ACCORDING to 2nd defendant (as D. W. 1), her father, mother, herself, and her sister (D1) were residing together and the brothers were residing separately. She received a sum of Rs. ( 29 ) ACCORDING to 2nd defendant (as D. W. 1), her father, mother, herself, and her sister (D1) were residing together and the brothers were residing separately. She received a sum of Rs. 14,500/- for the land acquired out of 'b' schedule property, which she kept in the two Banks, in deposit in the joint names of herself and her mother. She had also sold a site out of 'b' schedule for Rs. 18,000/- which again she kept in Bank deposit in the year 1968. The remaining property, in 'b' schedule had five tenants and she was getting a monthly rent of Rs. 1,200/- to Rs. 1,400/- per month, and an advance of Rs. 14,000/ -. According to her she had purchased gold and silver articles also. Again, at para 14 of her deposition she says that she was getting a total rent of Rs. 1000/- per month from the property gifted to her. She says that except the shop premises in the occupation of George, other properties were sold. She had constructed a room of about 25' x 10' in the gifted property and spent Rs. 20,000/- for the same. Again she says, she spent about Rs. 30,000/- for the construction. ( 30 ) THE evidence of D. W. 1 regarding the sale of her properties could have been supported with documentary evidence, but she has not produced them. The date of sales are not quite clear. Admittedly she spent about Rs. 30,000/- for construction and the sale amount has not been utilised for the same. There is no reason for her to keep her monies in deposit, jointly in her name with her mother. It is more reasonable to infer that Doddabasamma kept the joint family funds jointly in the names of 2nd defendant and herself. There is no explanation as to what happened to the monies of MCC. He must have had some cash, having regard to his admitted financial status. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the trial court's finding that all Term deposits and saving Bank accounts are joint family funds, except the cumulative deposit account No. 4/2412 REFERRED TO in trial Court's decree. However, 2nd defendant also will be entitled to her 1/9th share in the joint family funds. Re. In the circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the trial court's finding that all Term deposits and saving Bank accounts are joint family funds, except the cumulative deposit account No. 4/2412 REFERRED TO in trial Court's decree. However, 2nd defendant also will be entitled to her 1/9th share in the joint family funds. Re. Moveables Other Than Jewellery : ( 31 ) SINCE joint family, normally, should have some furniture and moveables, and the evidence on record is not sufficient to sustain the claim of 2nd defendant, we affirm the judgement of the trial court as to the moveables; however, while effecting the partition, second defendant will be entitled to 1/9th share in these moveables. Re. Jewellery : ( 32 ) PARTIES have fought this litigation with great earnest, regarding the jewellery. Apart from the jewellery found by the trial court, some more items were discovered by the Commissioner appointed by this court. The report of the Commissioner appointed by this Court gives the details of the jewellery found in the Bank locker. The discussion hereinafter and the ultimate decree would cover the entire jewellery REFERRED TO in the trial Court as well as the jewellery described in the report of the Commissioner appointed by this Court. ( 33 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, jewellery belongs to the joint family; while 2nd defendant contends that some part of the jewellery described by her in her written statement belonged to her exclusively and the rest belonged to her mother, which, her mother gifted to her. ( 34 ) IN the undisputed background of the financial status of MCC and the nature of his vocation, there can be no doubt, that he would have gifted ornaments to his daughter at the time of her marriage. P. W. 1 admits that, 2nd defendant was given some jewellery at the time of her marriage, which according to him, she left in her husband's house, while returning to the parental home. P. W. 1 says at para 9 of his deposition :"at the time of her marriage, my father had gifted schedule 'b' property and other jewellery to her. 2nd defendant had taken the jewels and I do not know what she did with the jewels. 2nd defendant returned to our house within 15 days after her marriage. When she came back, she did not bring any jewelleries back. 2nd defendant had taken the jewels and I do not know what she did with the jewels. 2nd defendant returned to our house within 15 days after her marriage. When she came back, she did not bring any jewelleries back. It is not true to say that all the jewelleries mentioned in plaint belongs to 2nd defendant. It is not true to say that my mother gifted the jewels to 2nd defendant. ""it is true that during his lifetime my father had got prepared many ornaments and delivered them to my mother. All the item in schedule 'e' were got prepared by my father and delivered to my mother. He got certain ornaments prepared and gave them to my sisters D 1 and D 2. I do not know the details. Both these defendants gave away their ornaments and jewelleries to their respective husbands and separated from them. D1 was with her husband only for about one year. They came back to live with their father. "according to P. W. 1 the jewellery detailed in the written statement of 2nd defendant belonged to him and he had given them for safe custody and these were ornaments given to him at the time of his marriage. ( 35 ) 2nd defendant as D. W 1 asserts that jewellery belong to her and her mother and that her monther's jewellery was gifted to her and no joint family jewellery was with her. She had lecucoderma and because of this, within a few days of her marriage, her husband left her. She denies that her husband deprived her, of her jewellery, when she returned to her parental house. The ornaments of plaintiffs and 3rd defendant are with them. It is undisputed that, plaintiffs obtained an ex parte order of Commission, immediately on filing the suit and the Commissioner prepared an inventory of several articles found by him in the custody of respective parties. The big iron safe was opened by 2nd defendant in which 12 articles were found (mostly silver articles ). In the iron bureau of 2nd defendant 83 articles were found. In an iron safe opened by 2nd defendant small coins were found and some ornamentals were also found. In the iron bureau opened by 3rd defendant some ornaments, coins etc. , were found. Several vessels are also noted by the Commissioner, probably found with the 2nd defendant. In the iron bureau of 2nd defendant 83 articles were found. In an iron safe opened by 2nd defendant small coins were found and some ornamentals were also found. In the iron bureau opened by 3rd defendant some ornaments, coins etc. , were found. Several vessels are also noted by the Commissioner, probably found with the 2nd defendant. In the big iron safe opened by the plaintiff-1, Commissioner noticed several vessels and a gold necklace with red stones. (here we are not giving the details of several other moveables ). ( 36 ) 2nd defendant has asserted that the ornaments described by her in Annexure 'a' to the written statement were given to her at the time of her marriage; she has repeated the same as D. W. 1. P. W. 1 admits that 2nd defendant was given some jewellery at the time of her marriage, but asserts that they were left by her while leaving her husband. It is impossible to accept this version of P. W. 1. If 2nd defendant had to leave her husband's house within a few days of her marriage, probabilities are that she would have taken her jewellery with her. If her husband prevented her from taking the jewellery, her father (MCC) would not have kept quiet. Therefore, we cannot agree with the trial court which held that the entire jewellery (except a few nominal items), as of the joint family. The items described in Annexure 'a' to the written statement, in the very nature of' those ornaments, look like the jewellery of a daughter given to her at the time of marriage. It is also customary to present sliver articles at the time of the wedding. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the 35 items of silver articles described in Annexure 'a' to the written statement, also belong to the 2nd defendant exclusively. ( 37 ) 2nd defendant asserts that the remaining articles belonged to her mother, which the latter gifted to her. However, there is no direct evidence of the gift. Doddabasamma, it is asserted, was under the control of her daughter 2nd defendant; they were residing together. Doddabasamma died suddenly of heart attack as per P. W. 1. ( 37 ) 2nd defendant asserts that the remaining articles belonged to her mother, which the latter gifted to her. However, there is no direct evidence of the gift. Doddabasamma, it is asserted, was under the control of her daughter 2nd defendant; they were residing together. Doddabasamma died suddenly of heart attack as per P. W. 1. It is more probable that the balance of gold articles belonged to Doddabasamma, which was given to her by her husband (and in all probability a few items she would have got from her parents ). It is unlikely that Doddabasamma had no jewellery of her own. The family's status could lead to the only inference that the 1st lady of the house would have ornaments. P. W. 1 also admitted that his mother had jewellery of her own. ( 38 ) HOWEVER, it is not possible to accept the case of 2nd defendant that Doddabasamma gifted all her jewelleries to her alone; she died suddenly and had no time to make a proper provision regarding her jewellery etc. It is not possible to believe that she could have deprived her two sons, shares in these articles. Consequently we hold that, in all the gold jewellery (other than those, described in Annexure-A to the written statement of 2nd defendant), 1st plaintiff, 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant would have equal rights; each of them is entitled to 1/3rd share in those partible articles, as heirs of Doaddabasamma. ( 39 ) THOUGH Ex. P. 1 is not enforceable, recitals therein may serve as evidence of certain facts stated therein. MCC stated therein that the jewellery and other articles of 1st defendant given to her were taken away by her husband, when the latter left her this is an indication that 1st defendant had no jewels or other valuables of her own. Ex. P. 1 also recites that Doddabasamma had several jewels and other articles belonging to her as stridhana. The silver articles are more in the nature of household articles/vessels and therefore the silver articles (other than those which belong to 2nd defendant, described in Annexure A to the written statement of 2nd defendant) should be treated along with other moveable, such as vessels and furniture; we hold them to be of the joint family in which 1st plaintiff and 3rd defendant each entitled to 4/9th share, while 2nd defendant is entitled to 1/9th share. ( 40 ) IN the result, we declare that,- (I) in the joint family property plaintiffs and 3rd defendant are entitled to 4/9th share each, and the 2nd defendant is entitled to 1/9th share; (ii) the immoveable joint family properties, partible in the above mariner, consist of the immoveables described in Schedule 'a' of the plaint (i. e. , A-1, A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5 ). (iii) the gold and silver ornaments and articles described in Annexure 'a' to the written statement of the 2nd defendant belong to the 2nd defendant absolutely in her own right; (iv) the gold ornaments found in the inventory prepared in the trial Court and in the report of the Commissioner appointed by this Court, except the jewellery belonging to the 2nd defendant as declared above, shall be partitioned amongst plaintiff No. 1, 2nd defendant and 3rd defendant equally; (v) all the moveable including the silver articles, other than covered by the above clauses, shall be partitioned as joint family property, in which plaintiffs and 3rd defendant are entitled to 4/9th share each and the 2nd defendant 1/9th share; (vi) the bank deposits and savings bank accounts other than the cumulative deposit No. 5/2412 REFERRED TO in the trial Court's decree, are partible as joint family property, in the same proportion, as other joint family properties stated above; (vii) respective parties are entitled to seek their shares subject to payment of Court-fee; (viii) appropriate application be filed in the trial Court for effecting the partition as declared herein; (ix) any other property or amounts due to the family, such as the one involved in the suit pending for specific performance also shall be partitioned in the same proportion as stated in clause (i) above; and (x) there shall be no order as to costs. The appeal is allowed accordingly. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .