JUDGMENT : N. Kumar, J. 1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against the judgment and decree of the Trial Court which has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that they have failed to prove existence of joint family and the suit schedule properties are joint family properties. The subject-matter of suit is 4 agricultural lands which are more particularly described in Schedules A and B house properties which are more particularly described in Schedule A at Sl. Nos. 1 to 8. 2. The plaintiff has set out the genealogy out in para 3 of the plaint. It discloses that one Mallappa was the propositus. He had 3 sons by name Allappa, Ningappa and Khanchappa. Ningappa died issueless on 18-9-1946. Allappa died on 23-6-1983 and Khandappa died on 4-7-1988. Plaintiffs 1 to 3 are his sons and defendants is his daughters and defendant 11 is the daughter's daughter. 3. The case of the plaintiffs is after the death of Allappa, Ningappa and Khandappa, there is no partition between the plaintiffs and defendants by metes and bounds. The suit properties are the ancestral joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants. They are in actual joint possession of the suit properties. The plaintiffs purchased the property bearing R.S. No. 19/2+3/1 measuring 5 acres 24 guntas of Jaganur Village out of their own self earnings and therefore the suit property is their self-acquired property. The defendants are in no way concerned with the suit property. When defendants 1 to 4 tried to disturb their possession, they filed a suit O.S. No. 93 of 2004 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chikodi, which is pending. When the defendants started disturbing the plaintiffs' enjoyment of the suit properties, they were constrained to file a suit for partition claiming 1/2 share in all the plaint schedule properties. 4. After service of notice, 3rd defendant filed a detailed statement. He denied the genealogy. He denied that the plaintiffs are Bhaubands of the defendants. The plaintiffs are taking undue advantage of the similarity of the surname and are making a false claim over the suit property of the defendants. He denied that Mallappa died leaving behind Allappa, Ningappa and Khandappa. He denied that Khandappa was the son of Mallappa. The plaintiff are the adjacent owners of the defendant's landed properties. The plaintiffs are taking undue advantage of the similarity of the surname and are making a false claim over the suit property of the defendants. He denied that Mallappa died leaving behind Allappa, Ningappa and Khandappa. He denied that Khandappa was the son of Mallappa. The plaintiff are the adjacent owners of the defendant's landed properties. The plaintiffs have encroached over the lands of the defendants to an extent of 8 guntas which was revealed during survey and that the defendants requested the plaintiffs to handover the same, the plaintiffs refused to handover and they filed a false suit. Allappa alone was cultivating suit land bearing R.S. Nos. 18 and 19/1 as a tenant and it was granted by the Land Reforms Tribunal to Allappa exclusively. Allappa had purchased R.S. No. 20/1, measuring 6 acres 15 guntas from its owner for a valuable consideration of Rs. 6,000/- under the registered sale deed dated 11-1-1982. He also purchased two house properties under to different sale deeds dated 15-7-1955 and 29-7-1959 respectively for a valuable consideration. There is no ancestral properties of the father of the defendant. The father of the defendant has acquired all the properties out of his own separate hard efforts and earnings. The plaintiffs are in no way concerned to the suit properties. The defendant has purchased the land bearing R.S. No. 17/4B measuring 2 acres under a registered sale deed dated 16-7-2003 for a consideration of Rs. 2,38,000/-. Thus, defendant 3 and his brothers are absolute owners in actual possession of all the suit properties. The plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit properties. They have no manner of right, title or interest over the suit properties. The suit is not maintainable and therefore, he sought for dismissal of the suit. Defendants 10 and 11 also have filed written statement supporting the plaintiffs' case. 5. In the light of the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether plaintiffs prove the genealogy given in the plaint to be true and correct? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit properties are their joint family properties as alleged? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that RS No. 19/2+3/1 of Jaganur is his self-acquired property? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the partition and separate possession in the suit property? If so what is their share? 5. What order/decree? 2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the suit properties are their joint family properties as alleged? 3. Whether the plaintiffs prove that RS No. 19/2+3/1 of Jaganur is his self-acquired property? 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the partition and separate possession in the suit property? If so what is their share? 5. What order/decree? The plaintiffs, in order to substantiate their claim, examined first plaintiff as P.W. 1 and produced 32 documents which are marked as Exs. P. 1 to P. 32. On behalf of the defendants, 3rd defendant-Ningappa, Allappa Mahalingpure was examined as D.W. 1. A witness was examined as D.W. 2 and produced 65 documents which are marked as Exs. D. 1 to D. 64. 6. The Trial Court, on appreciation of the aforesaid oral and documentary evidence on record held that the plaintiffs have proved the genealogy produced by them. Mallappa died leaving behind 3 sons Allappa, Ningappa and Khandappa. The contention of the defendants that Khandappa is not the son of Mallappa is not correct. However, it proceeded to hold that the propositus Mallappa did not own any property in his name. In other words, there was no joint family property. The evidence on record shows, Allappa, Ningappa and Khandappa were cultivating the lands as tenants. Allappa, filed Form 7 in respect of item Nos. 1 and 2 of agricultural lands and it was granted in his favour whereas Khandappa had purchased the land which was in cultivation as a tenant. In fact Allappa had also purchased the property cultivated by Ningappa, which subsequently inherited by his wife Rachawwa under a registered sale deed. No house property stood in the name of Mallappa. They are all acquired by the defendant under a registered sale deeds in 1950. Therefore, it recorded a finding that the suit properties are not the joint family properties and the suit for partition filed is misconceived. Accordingly, it dismissed the suit. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 8. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs assailing the impugned judgment and decree contends that once the Court below held that Khandappa was the son of Mallappa and admittedly when there is no partition between Khandappa and Allappa, though the properties are standing in the name of Allappa, the Court ought to have decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. 8. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs assailing the impugned judgment and decree contends that once the Court below held that Khandappa was the son of Mallappa and admittedly when there is no partition between Khandappa and Allappa, though the properties are standing in the name of Allappa, the Court ought to have decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. In the cross-examination, the defendants have admitted that Allappa was cultivating his land for a period of 50 years. That shows Mallappa was cultivating the land and that witness also admits that the revenue records stood in their name. This evidence has been overlooked by the Trial Court in coming to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have not proved their case. Therefore, he submits, a case for interference is made out. 9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the defendants/respondents supported the impugned judgment and decree. 10. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the point that arises for our consideration is: Whether the plaintiffs have proved the existence of joint family property to get a decree for partition? 11. Now the material on record discloses that propositus Mallappa died leaving behind 3 sons namely Allappa, Ningappa and Khandappa. Ningappa died issueless. Therefore, Khandappa and Allappa were children of Mallappa who constituted a Hindu undivided family. The evidence on record shows Allappa was cultivating 9 acres in respect of Item No. 1 of the plaint schedule property. His name finds a place in column (9) as well as column (12) as well as an occupant vide Ex. P. 19 and it further discloses that his name was entered as a protected tenant of the said land and his name continued upto 1934-1935 as per Ex. D. 6. Again his name is continued from 1946-1947 to 1957-1958 vide Ex. D. 7. Further his name continued from the year 1959-1966 vide Ex. D. 8 subsequently from 1965-1970 his name was continued as per Ex. D. 9 and his name continued till 1977 to 1982 as per Ex. D. 10. The Government's name i.e. SARKAR came to be mutated in view of the amendment to the Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973. In 1972 his name finds a place as a protected tenant. He filed an application in Form 7. Occupancy rights were granted in his favour. Subsequently Form 10 has also been issued in his favour as per Ex. D. 16. In 1972 his name finds a place as a protected tenant. He filed an application in Form 7. Occupancy rights were granted in his favour. Subsequently Form 10 has also been issued in his favour as per Ex. D. 16. He paid the amount of Rs. 7,574/- to the Government vide Ex. D. 17 and his name was mutated and he died on 26-6-1983 as per Ex. P. 13 and subsequently his children's name has been mutated. They have raised loan from Bellad Bagewadi Urban Co-operative Bank and they have improved the property. Therefore, at no point of time, this land was cultivated by Mallappa. In fact name of Khandappa is also shown as a tenant in respect of the land bearing No. 19/2+3 from the year 1948-1949 as per Ex. P. 18 and subsequently he has purchased the said property under a registered sale deed in the year 1984. In fact the evidence on record shows Ningappa's name is shown in the record of rights in respect of R.S. No. 20/1 in the year 1934-1935 vide Ex. P. 19. He died in the year 1946 leaving behind his wife Rachawwa. Her name is entered in the record of rights for a period 1947-1948 as per Ex. P. 22 and Allappa has purchased 6 acres 15 guntas of the said land from the original landlords by paying Rs. 6,000/- under the registered sale deed vide Ex. D. 3. Defendants 3 and 4 sons have also purchased the said land from Allappa for Rs. 1,67,000/- vide Ex. D. 4. This undisputed transaction at an undisputed point of time clearly demonstrates that no property stood in the name of Mallappa. In fact the plaintiffs filed a suit prior to filing of the suit in respect of property bearing Sy. No. 19/2/3 on the ground that the defendants who have no right over the property are trying to interfere with their possession. In the said suit he describes the present defendants are totally strangers. There is no whisper in the suit about existence of joint family, joint family properties and the factum of the family continuing jointly and there is no partition. After taking into consideration this undisputed material on record, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that though Mallappa died leaving behind 3 sons, Mallappa left behind no properties. There was no joint family property in existence. After taking into consideration this undisputed material on record, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that though Mallappa died leaving behind 3 sons, Mallappa left behind no properties. There was no joint family property in existence. The property cultivated by different member of the joint family were their exclusive property. They have-been living separately and they are enjoying their properties separately. They have made acquisitions in their own name out of their own funds and therefore the evidence on record clearly establishes non-existence of joint family property. Therefore, the plaintiffs' suit is rightly dismissed by the Trial Court. In the absence of the propositus-Mallappa cultivating any land, acquired any land in his name and leaving the property to his children on his death, it cannot be said that the joint family owned any properties. It is well-settled that mere existence of joint family do not lead to any inference that the property standing in the name of other member as a joint family properties. The evidence on record clearly establishes members of the family were cultivating separate lands from the period 1934 onwards. Therefore, this properties exclusively belongs to them. The plaintiffs themselves claim the properties which they purchased as their absolute property and described the defendants as totally strangers. Under those circumstances, the finding recorded by the Trial Court that there exists no joint family and therefore the plaintiffs have no right over the plaint schedule property, is based on regal evidence and do not suffer from any legal infirmity which calls for interference. No merit. Dismissed.