JUDGMENT B.V. PINTO, J.—This regular first appeal is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment dated 24.1.2007 passed in O.S. No. 143/2001 by the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and CJM, Mandya, allowing the suit filed by the plaintiff and declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to ¼th share in the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff has filed the Cross-objections praying that she be allotted ½ share in the suit schedule properties instead of ¼th share as held by the trial Court. The parties are referred according to their ranking in the trial Court. 2. It is the case of the plaintiff that Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda had a son by name Ramanna and daughter Channamma. Both Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda and his wife Chowdamma are dead leaving behind their son and daughter. All the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda. The plaintiff and defendants are enjoying the suit schedule properties jointly as joint family properties. There was no division of properties between the co-parceners during the life time of Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda even after the death of Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda, there was no division of properties. Earlier Kempegowda @ Dollana Thimmegowdara Kempegowda was the manager of the joint Hindu family constituting of plaintiff and defendant after his death, the family properties is being managed by Ramanna who is the 1st defendant. The plaintiff along with dependants is in joint possession and enjoyment of all the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are joint and ancestral properties and are yielding very good income as they are irrigated land. The 1st defendant in order to defraud the plaintiff is not disclosing the income from joint family properties and also attempting to alienate the same without any family necessities. From the last six months, there is a misunderstanding between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant on verification of the revenue documents, the plaintiff came to know that katha of suit schedule Item-7 has been changed in favour of 2nd defendant, who is none-other than the wife of 1st defendant without consent of the plaintiff. The suit schedule Item-8 has been purchased out of joint family funds in the name of 2nd defendant and, therefore, that item is also joint family properties. The 1st and 2nd defendants are colluding and attempting to alienate the properties to defraud the plaintiff. The suit schedule Item-8 has been purchased out of joint family funds in the name of 2nd defendant and, therefore, that item is also joint family properties. The 1st and 2nd defendants are colluding and attempting to alienate the properties to defraud the plaintiff. During life time of father of plaintiff, the family was in possession and enjoyment of the gold jewels, i.e., one kasinasara, 3 rope chain, kappa, 4 rings and one bullok cart, bulloks, now the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the same. After the death of father of plaintiff. In view of the hostile attitude of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff has demanded for partition and separate possession of her legitimate share in the suit schedule properties, during the month of April, 2001 number of panchayath held in this regard and 1st respondent has totally refused to give the share of plaintiff the 1st defendant is not a law abiding person and hence, the plaintiff has no other alternative except to approach this Court. Hence, the suit. 3. The defendants appeared before the Court and filed their written statement. It is contended by the defendants denying the plaint averments and pleaded that plaintiff is a married sister of 1st defendant and ever since the date of her marriage she has been living with her husband in his house. Therefore, she cannot be termed as co-parcener along with the defendant-1. It is a fact that there was no division between the 1st defendant and his father. It is a fact that father of 1st defendant was managing the family till the 1st defendant attained the age of majority. Out of the money of 2nd defendant, the suit item-7 was purchased in the name of 1st defendant and after 1st defendant released the same, he consented for change of khatha in the name of 2nd defendant. Thus, there is absolutely no wrong committed by the 1st defendant and the revenue authorities is changing the khatha in the name of 2nd defendant. When the plaintiff has absolutely no right, title or possession whatsoever in respect of the above said property, the question of consenting for change of khatha in the name of 2nd defendant does not arise at all. The suit schedule item-8 has been purchased out of the joint family funds in the name of 2nd defendant. The suit item-8 is also absolute property of 2nd defendant. The suit schedule item-8 has been purchased out of the joint family funds in the name of 2nd defendant. The suit item-8 is also absolute property of 2nd defendant. The 2nd defendant has purchased the said property by selling the jewels which was given to her parents and also the amount given by them. Therefore, the plaintiff and 1st defendant have absolutely no manner of right, title or interest in respect of the suit item-8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the suit schedule items-7 and 8 are the exclusive properties of the 2nd defendant and the same are the streedhana properties of 2nd defendant and the plaintiff has nothing to do with the said properties. The suit schedule items-1 to 6, 11 and 14 are the only ancestral properties. Actually the family of the defendant-1 is not at all getting any income from the said properties. The 1st defendant was doing business in purchasing paddy and ragi and he was also doing brokerage in selling buffalo, cows, she-buffalo, sheep etc., and further 1st defendant has also been cultivating the land of one Kambaiah as a tenant and out of the income of the said business and also the income from the said lands, he purchased the suit items-9, 10, 12, 13 and 15. Thus, these properties are the exclusive and self acquired properties of the 1st defendant. Except 1st defendant, none including the plaintiff have got right over the said properties. The 1st defendant has been exercising the right over the aforesaid properties as absolute owner. Apart from the income of said properties, 1st defendant has also borrowed loan from the other which are the outstanding to the extent of more than Rs.3,00,000/- and 1st defendant also spent amount in order to cultivate the said properties. Absolutely, no contribution made by anybody including the plaintiff further no contribution is made by the father of 1st defendant in order to purchase the said properties. At no point of time, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of any portion of the said properties. Hence suit of plaintiff is not at all maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed. 4. At no point of time, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of any portion of the said properties. Hence suit of plaintiff is not at all maintainable in law and liable to be dismissed. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues: (I) Do the plaintiff prove that all the suit schedule properties are the joint family ancestral properties and that she entitled for 1/4th share in all the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds? (II) Do the defendants prove that suit schedule items-9, 10, 12, 13 and 15 are the self acquired properties of 1st defendant and that suit schedule item Nos. 7 and 8 are the “Streedhana” properties of 2nd defendant? (III) To what relief the parties are entitled? (IV) What decree or order? 5. The plaintiff in order to prove her case examined herself as PW.1 and one Thammanna and Chikkasiddaiah as PW.2 and PW.3 and got marked Exs.P.1 to P.15. On the other hand, 1st defendant has examined himself as DW.1 and 2nd defendant is examined as DWs.4 and 3 other witnesses, i.e., Puttaramegowda, B.Chowdaiah and Chowdaiah S/o Bolichowdana Chinnaiah as DWs.2, 3 and 5 and got marked Exs.D1 to D29. 6. The trial Court after considering the above evidence, adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and defendants, has decreed the suit by holding issue No. (i) in the affirmative and issue No. (ii) in the negative and further declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to ¼th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants have filed this appeal. After receipt of the notice of appeal from this Court, the plaintiff has filed her cross-objections which is registered as MFA. CROB. No. 12/2008. 7. Heard Sri M. Sivappa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in RFA No. 1001/2007 and Respondents in RFA.CROB.12/2008 and Sri Rameshraj, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent in RFA No. 1001/2007 and Cross Objector in RFA.CROB.12/2008. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court has grossly erred in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to ¼th share in the suit schedule properties. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submits that the trial Court has grossly erred in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to ¼th share in the suit schedule properties. He has submitted that the suit itself is not maintainable since the plaintiff is a married sister of the first defendant No. 1, who got married as long back as 24.2.1965 and while marrying her, gold, cash and other items were given to her, which was in lieu of her share in the property. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel that the father of the plaintiff and defendants having died in the year 1996, it is defendant No. 1 who has acquired item Nos. 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 & 15 of suit schedule properties out of his own resources and assume the character of self acquired properties. Hence, the trial Court ought to have answered issue No. 2 in the affirmative. Similarly it is his submission that item Nos. 7 & 8 are Streedhana properties of defendant No. 2 and the same do not come within the purview of joint family properties. The learned Counsel has relied on the following rulings:- (i) reported in AIR 2003 SC 3800 in the case of D.S. Lakshmaiah and another vs. Balasubramanyam and another, which reads as follows:- “18. The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available. 20. In the present case, respondents have not led any evidence on the aforesaid aspects and, therefore, it cannot be held that the first appellant blended Item No. 1 property into the joint family account. 21. In view of aforesaid discussion, item No. 1 property cannot be held to be joint family property. 20. In the present case, respondents have not led any evidence on the aforesaid aspects and, therefore, it cannot be held that the first appellant blended Item No. 1 property into the joint family account. 21. In view of aforesaid discussion, item No. 1 property cannot be held to be joint family property. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx” (ii) reported in AIR 1987 KAR 2883 in the case of Krishne Gowda vs. Ninge gowda, which reads as follows:- 7. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Of course in the case of acquisition by a junior member of a joint family the fact that the joint family possessed considerable nucleus capable of yielding income sufficient to enable acquisition of property is not by itself sufficient to hold that acquisition by a junior member of such joint family is with the aid of the joint family and the presumption to that effect cannot also be drawn, It shall have to be proved either by showing that is was acquired by the joint family funds or by proving that such junior member was in charge or management of the joint family property or business, though not the kartha of the family, capable of yielding income so as to enable him to purchase the property. In the latter case, if such junior member was not able to show that he had independent source of income or the consideration to the acquisition of the property had flown from the particular source not connected with joint family property, a presumption shall have to be drawn that such acquisition of property was with the aid of joint family funds inasmuch as in such a case the junior member being in possession and management of the joint family property or business, his position will be akin to that of kartha. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” (iii) reported in AIR 2001 MP 179 in the case of Smt. Rajeshwari and others vs. V. Balchand Jain and others, which reads as follows:- “13. It is a settled principle that there is no presumption that joint family possesses joint property. Merely because a family is joint, every property purchased or held by its members is not a property of joint family. The burden of proving it to be so is on the party asserting it.” 9. It is a settled principle that there is no presumption that joint family possesses joint property. Merely because a family is joint, every property purchased or held by its members is not a property of joint family. The burden of proving it to be so is on the party asserting it.” 9. The Counsel for the plaintiff on the other hand submits that the plaintiff being the daughter and defendant No. 1 being the son, she is entitled to half share in the property and, therefore, to that extent the decree passed by the trial Court may be modified by allowing the cross-objection and by dismissing the appeal. 10. The points for determination are:- (i) Whether the Judgment of the trial Court, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule properties is justified or requires interference? (ii) Whether the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff is entitled to ¼th share in the suit schedule properties is justified or requires interference? (iii) What relief the appellant is entitled to? 11. Our answers to the aforesaid points are:- (i) in the affirmative (ii) in the affirmative (iii) as per final order for the following:- Reasons 12. The suit schedule properties are situated at Ummadahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mandya Taluk and comprise the following items of properties: (I) Sy. No. 37/6A, measuring 0.23 guntas (II) Sy. No. 37/5b, measuring 0.18 guntas (III) Sy. No. 74/8 measuring 0.21 guntas (IV) Sy. No. 75/8A measuring 7½ guntas (V) Sy. No. 104/2 measuring 0.14 guntas (VI) Sy. No. 63/3 measuring 0.18 guntas (VII) Sy. No. 52/3A measuring 0.57 guntas (VIII) Sy. No. 260 measuring 0.62 guntas (IX) Sy. No. 70-2/a1 measuring 0.12 guntas (X) Sy. No. 70-2/a2 measuring 0.12½ guntas (XI) Sy. No. 71-3 measuring 0.66 guntas (XII) House property being Mandya Municipal Katha No. D.7/2511, 10839 measuring 40' × 64' situated at Tavaragere r.4872, Mandya City. (XIII) House property katha No. 7, Mangalore tiled house, situated at Accetate Town Mandya. (XIV) House property katha No. 164 measuring 30' × 41' situated at Ummadahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mandya Taluk. (XV) Vacant site bearing katha No. 12 measuring 45' × 60' situated at Ummadahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mandya Taluk. B. SCHEDULE 1. Gold kasina sara, 45 grams Rs.20,000/- 2. 3 line rope chain, weighing 50 grams Rs.25,000/- 3. Kappa 50 grams Rs.25,000/- 4. Rings(gold) 30 grams Rs.15,000/- 5. (XV) Vacant site bearing katha No. 12 measuring 45' × 60' situated at Ummadahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mandya Taluk. B. SCHEDULE 1. Gold kasina sara, 45 grams Rs.20,000/- 2. 3 line rope chain, weighing 50 grams Rs.25,000/- 3. Kappa 50 grams Rs.25,000/- 4. Rings(gold) 30 grams Rs.15,000/- 5. One Bulock Cart with bullocks (one pair) Rs.20,000/- 13. In order to substantiate her claim, the plaintiff has examined herself as PW.1 and has reiterated the averments made in the plaint. The evidence of the plaintiff is also challenged in the cross-examination in so far as the claim of the defendant that the certain items of properties namely Nos. 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15 are self acquired properties of the defendant and also the Item Nos. 7 and 8 are the sthreedhana properties of the second defendant. The plaintiff has further got examined PWs.2 and 3, whose evidence also supports the claim of the plaintiff that all the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties of the plaintiff and the first defendant. On the other hand, defendant No. 1 has examined himself as DW.1 and has further stated on oath that apart from Item Nos. 7 and 8 being the sthreedhana properties of second defendant, who is the wife of the first defendant, item Nos. 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15 are his self acquired properties. He has stated that apart from taking care of the suit schedule properties, he is used to carry on brokerage [Dallali] business in commodities like cattle, paddy and ragi and other items and out of the income of the said business, he had purchased the aforesaid items of properties. In support of his claim to the said properties, the defendant has also examined 4 more witnesses namely., DW.2-Puttaramegowda, DW.3-B.Chowdaiah and DW.4-Chikkathayamma and DW.5-Chowdaiah. While the plaintiff has relied on Exs.P1 to P15 which are the RTCs of the suit schedule properties; Municipal Khatha Extracts and House Assessment Extracts. The defendant has produced the Sale Deeds at Exs.D1 to D6, mutation copies as per Exs.D7 to D11; assessment extract at Ex.D12; Voter’s list as per Exs.D15 to D19 and also the ration cards at Exs.D20 to 29. The defendant has produced the Sale Deeds at Exs.D1 to D6, mutation copies as per Exs.D7 to D11; assessment extract at Ex.D12; Voter’s list as per Exs.D15 to D19 and also the ration cards at Exs.D20 to 29. It is the case of the defendant and his witnesses that the defendant was carrying on business in cattle as well as paddy and ragi and earning lot of income from which he had purchased the items of properties mentioned by him. The learned Civil Judge has found that the claim of defendant No. 1 is not substantiated by any reliable documentary evidence and further that his claim that he was a manager of the suit schedule properties right from the year 1960 itself is also held to be not proved by him. The learned trial Court has held that in the year 1960, the father of defendant No. 1 was alive and that defendant No. 1 was only aged 22 years. Whereas father of defendant No. 1 has died in the year 1996 and no man of ordinary prudence would believe that the father would have entrusted the management of the suit schedule properties to his son at the age of 22 years while he was still hale and healthy. Hence, the claim of the defendant that he has earned a lot of money from his exclusive business through which he has purchased certain items of property is disbelieved by the trial Court. The trial Court has further come to the conclusion that defendant No. 1 being the only son who was residing with his father in the suit schedule properties, the items of properties purchased by him were out of the income of the property of his father and not from any independent source. Hence, the trial Court has held that all the items of properties are ancestral properties available for partition between the plaintiff and the defendants. 14. So far as the claim of the defendants that item Nos. 7 and 8 of the suit schedule properties are the Streedhana properties of defendant No. 2 is concerned, it is observed that the defendants have not examined any witnesses from the family of the second defendant to prove that during the time of her marriage her parents or brothers have given any financial help to her so as to enable her to purchase the properties. No documentary evidence is also produced to hold that defendant No. 2 had independent source to purchase item Nos. 7 and 8. On the other hand the properties were purchased on 29.12.1986 and 10.02.1989 where defendant No. 2 was residing with defendant No. 1 in the family house and properties. Hence, the trial Court has held that items No. 7 and 8 are purchased in the name of the second defendant out of the income of the joint family properties and, therefore, they are also liable for partition among the plaintiff and first defendant. 15. We have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record. We have also gone through the reasoning given by the trial Court in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. On a thorough consideration of the entire materials on record, we find that the reasoning given by the learned trial Judge is based on the evidence on record and on the settled principles of law. The said Judgment is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence on record. 16. So far as the Cross-objection is concerned, though in the plaint the definite case of the plaintiff is that she is entitled to ¼th share in all the suit schedule properties, now the plaintiff claims half share in the properties. However, plaintiff being the daughter is entitled to ½ share in the ½ share of her father and hence the judgment of the trial Court on this aspect also does not call for any interference in this cross-objection. 17. In that view of the matter, we do not find any good ground to upset the well considered judgment of the trial Court and, therefore, both these appeal and cross-objection are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal and cross-objection are dismissed.