Judgment : The appellant is the 3rd defendant in O.S.No.128 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Piler, Chittoor District. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent for the relief of declaration of title and perpetual injunction in respect of four items of immovable property. The respondents 2 and 3 are the parents of the appellant and the 1st respondent i.e., plaintiff is the wife of the elder brother of the appellant. The 1st respondent pleaded that while items 1 to 3 of the suit schedule property were purchased by her through sale deed, dated 03.04.1974, under Ex.A1, item 4 was purchased through a sale deed, dated 10.06.1974, under Ex.A2.She stated that she has been issued pattedar passbook and title deeds and has been enjoying the property exclusively. She pleaded that the 2nd respondent is her father-in-law, who got issued a notice stating that the suit schedule property belongs to the joint family and in the light of that she not only got issued a reply, but also filed a suit for declaration. The appellant, on the one hand, and the respondents 2 and 3, on the other, filed separate written statements. In both the written statements, it is stated that the property was purchased by the husband of the 1st respondent for and on behalf of the joint family and for the sake of convenience, the sale deeds were executed in favour of the 1st respondent. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 23.11.2007. Aggrieved by that, the appellant filed A.S.No.4 of 2008 in the Court of the VII Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Madanapalle, Chittoor District. The appeal was dismissed on 27.06.2012. Hence the Second Appeal. Sri Ram Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the suit schedule properties were purchased by the elder brother, who is none other than the husband of the 1st respondent/plaintiff and taking advantage of the fact that the sale deeds are in her name, the 1st respondent filed the suit. He contends that the father of the appellant i.e., the 2nd respondent herein, who opposed the suit all through has colluded with the 1st respondent. Learned counsel further submits that though the 1st respondent is hale and healthy, she did not enter the witness box and her husband deposed on her behalf, and thereby, serious irregularity has crept in the proceedings. Learned counsel further submits that though the 1st respondent is hale and healthy, she did not enter the witness box and her husband deposed on her behalf, and thereby, serious irregularity has crept in the proceedings. The relationship of the parties has already been mentioned. The 1st respondent, who is none other than the sister-in-law of the appellant herein, filed the suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in respect of four items of property. The provocation for her to file a suit was a legal notice got issued by the 2nd respondent/1st defendant. On the basis of pleadings before it, the trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the sale deeds dated 03.04.1974 and 10.06.1974 are executed in favour of the plaintiff in a benami way? 2. Whether the plaint schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff’s husband and defendant? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for any injunction? 4. To what relief? Additional Issue: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration of rights and title over the suit schedule properties? On behalf of the 1st respondent, PWs.1 to 6 were examined and EXs.A1 to A23 were marked. In addition to that, Exs.X1 to X67, which are the entries in various documents, have been taken on record. On behalf of the appellant and respondent Nos.2 and 3, DWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. The suit was decreed and in the appeal preferred by the appellant herein, the lower Court framed following points for consideration: 1. Whether the plaint schedule properties are the self acquired properties of the plaintiff? If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties as prayed for? 2. Whether the Judgment and decree passed by the lower court are sustainable under law? 3. To what relief? The appeal was dismissed. The relief of declaration prayed for by the 1st respondent and the consequential relief of injunction were on the basis of two sale deeds marked as Exs.A1 and A2. The appellant did not dispute the genuinity of those two documents. However, his plea was that the purchase of lands under those two sale deeds was in fact made by his elder brother i.e., the husband of the 1st respondent and in that view of the matter, the items deserve to be treated as the property of the joint family. The appellant did not dispute the genuinity of those two documents. However, his plea was that the purchase of lands under those two sale deeds was in fact made by his elder brother i.e., the husband of the 1st respondent and in that view of the matter, the items deserve to be treated as the property of the joint family. It may be true that there are instances where the Kartha of a joint family purchases the lands in the name of his spouse or other women folk and if adequate evidence exists, such transactions can be treated as those that are for, or on behalf of the joint family. In the instant case, the person in whose name the properties were purchased filed the suit. In case the appellant wanted the properties to be declared or treated as those belonging to the joint family, he ought to have filed an independent suit or made a counter claim in the very suit filed by the 1st respondent. He did neither. Further, the evidence adduced by the appellant is scanty and he miserably failed to prove that the suit schedule properties were purchased by his brother for and on behalf of the joint family. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court have examined the matter in detail and this Court does not find any substantial question of law in the Second Appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The Miscellaneous Petitions filed in this Second Appeal shall stand disposed of.