Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 404 (KAR)

P. Narayana v. P. Subramanya

2015-04-09

A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

body2015
Judgment :- 1. Concurrent findings are called in question by the 1st defendant of a case in an original suit bearing O.S.243/90 which was pending on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Mysuru. The 1st respondent herein is the sole plaintiff in the said suit. The other respondents are defendants 2 to 5 in the said suit. Parties will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants as per their ranking before the trial court. 2. Suit filed for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties claiming half share in 'B' schedule property as described in the schedule to the plaint has been decreed granting 7/15th share in item nos.1 and 2 by way of equitable partition in terms of proportionate price of the suit properties, and the 1st defendant has been directed to pay the proportionate price of both the sites described in 'B' schedule to the plaintiff. It is further held that the 3rd defendant is entitled to 1/15th share in item nos.1 and 2 of plaint 'B' schedule property. The judgment dated 25.7.2000 passed in O.S.243/00 had been called in question by filing an appeal under Section 96, C.P.C. before the Principal District Court at Mysore in R.A.32/00. The said appeal has been dismissed by the court vide considered judgment dated 22.1.2005. It is these concurrent findings which are called in question before this court by filing an appeal under Section 100, C.P.C. 3. Facts leading to the filing of the suit before the trial court by the 1st respondent herein-plaintiff are as follows: a) Three items of properties as described in schedule 'A' belonged to the family of Late Puttaiah. Said Puttaiah died in the year 1963 leaving behind him his wife, two sons, viz., Subramanya (plaintiff) and Narayana (1st defendant) and three daughters, Anusuyaa, Kamalamma and Leelavathi (defendants 3 to 5. Item nos.1 to 3 were acquired for straightening Devaraj Urs Road in Mysuru. Schedule 'A' properties were acquired by the 2nd defendant-Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA for short) and for the purpose of formation of road. All the items excluding 'A' schedule belonging to the joint family were partitioned by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in the year 1970. b) At the time of entering into partition, 'A' schedule property had already been acquired by the 2nd defendant and hence they were not included in the said partition. All the items excluding 'A' schedule belonging to the joint family were partitioned by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant in the year 1970. b) At the time of entering into partition, 'A' schedule property had already been acquired by the 2nd defendant and hence they were not included in the said partition. The plaintiff and 1st defendant received compensation payable on such acquisition from the 2nd defendant. According to the plaintiff, 2nd defendant had promised the members of the family to compensate them by allotting sites. The 1st defendant being the eldest member of the family and working under the 2nd defendant, undertook the responsibility to secure alternate sites. Plaintiff and his mother had assured him of executing any paper in this regard and they had lot of faith in the 1st defendant since he was working in the 2nd defendant office c) On inquiry made by the plaintiff about allotment of compensatory sites in lieu of sites acquired by the 2nd defendant, he went on assuring them that efforts were in progress to get the same. Ultimately plaintiff came to know that the 1st defendant had obtained a site in Devaraj Urs Road and also a residential site in Siddartha Layout, Mysuru, as compensatory sites from the 2nd defendant and he had not disclosed the same to the plaintiff or any member I his family. After coming to know of the same, they met the 1st defendant and asked him to give half share. In the light of his refusal to effect partition and asserting his own title over the schedule properties, plaintiff had no option but to file suit for partition and separate possession claiming half share. d) The 1st defendant has filed detailed written statement denying all the averments in the plaint and has called upon the plaintiff to strictly prove the contents of the same. According to him, partition took place in the year 1970 itself and the two sites allotted to him by the 2nd defendant are his absolute sites and nobody has any right to seek partition. It is further averred that the plaintiff had also been allotted a site in Mysuru and he deliberately gave up the offer of the 2nd defendant for reasons best known to him. It is further averred that the plaintiff had also been allotted a site in Mysuru and he deliberately gave up the offer of the 2nd defendant for reasons best known to him. It is his case that the when the 2nd defendant failed to allot oa site in the first phase of Devaraj Urs Road, he had to approach the High Court to get appropriate relief. With these pleadings he had requested the court to dismiss the suit. e) The 3rd defendant has filed detailed written statement denying the very partition referred to by the plaintiff and 1st defendant. According to her, the 1st defendant undertook the responsibility to get sites in lieu of acquisition of sites by the 2nd defendant on Devaraj Urs Road. According to her, the site bearing No.200 in D.K.Layout, Saraswathipuram, was allotted in favour of the 1st defendant and subsequently 1st defendant gave consent for change of khatha in favour of the 3rd defendant. Unfortunately the 1st defendant turned hostile towards her and sold the property in favour of a third party. The said action was challenged by her by filing a suit in O.S.522/83 which was re- numbered as O.S.1726/93. The said suit was dismissed and regular appeal was filed in R.A.80/94. According to her, she is entitled to 1/9th share. f) After the 3rd defendant filed written statement, the plaintiff chose to file rejoinder stating that the 3rd defendant had received Rs.5,000/-in lieu of her share of the joint family properties and therefore she is not entitled to a share. g) On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial court: 1) Does the plaintiff prove that 'A' 'schedule items which belonged to Puttaiah and his children, were acquired bythe 2nd defendant for formation of a road? 2) Does the plaintiff further prove that there was a partition dated 20.7.1970 between him and 1st defendant excluding the suit 'A;' schedule items? 3) Does the plaintiff further prove that himself and 1st defendant have received the compensation amount in respect of 'A' schedule items acquired by the 2nd defendant? 4) Does the plaintiff further prove that the 1st defendant acquired two sites from the 2nd defendant in lieu of acquisition of suit 'A' schedule items? 5) Does the plaintiff further prove that he is entitled for half share in 'B' schedule items? 4) Does the plaintiff further prove that the 1st defendant acquired two sites from the 2nd defendant in lieu of acquisition of suit 'A' schedule items? 5) Does the plaintiff further prove that he is entitled for half share in 'B' schedule items? 6) To what reliefs are the parties entitled? ADDITIONAL ISSUES: 1) Does the plaintiff prove that the 3rd defendant received Rs.5,000/- in full and settlement of her claim and relinquished her right in suit property? 2) Whether the plaintiff prove that the 1st defendant being the eldest male member of the family undertook the liability of securing the alternative site under process of replacement as contended in para 5 of the plaint? The plaintiff has been examined as PW1 and 11 exhibits have been marked on his behalf. The 1st defendant has been examined as DW1 and 3rd defendant-Anusuya is examined as DW2. Three exhibits have been got marked on behalf of the 1st defendant. Ultimately issue nos.1 to 4 and additional issue no.2 have been answered in the affirmative and issue no.5 has been answered partly in the affirmative, holding that plaintiff is entitled to 7/15th share instead of half share. Additional issue no.1 has been answered in the negative. Ultimately the suit is decreed as prayed for granting 7/15th share in item nos.1and 2 of the suit schedule properties by way of equitable partition subject to the liability of paying the proportionate cost of both the sites to the plaintiff. The third defendant is held to be entitled to 1/15th share in item nos.1 and 2. Both of them are entitled to recover the market price of their respective shares. 4. The Principal District Judge, Mysuru, has dismissed the appeal filed under Section 96, C.P.C. in R.A.32/00 on 22.1.2005, framing the following point for consideration as found in paragraph 10 of the judgment: Whether the court below was justified in holding that items 1 and 2 of plaint 'B' schedule were allotted by the 2nd defendant in the name of the 1st defendant in lieu of the acquisition of plaint 'A' schedule property and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for a share in the same? The said point has been answered in the affirmative holding that the two sites in 'B' schedule had been allotted to the 1st defendant as compensatory sites in lieu of acquisition of sites in Devaraj Urs Road which belonged to their family. It is these concurrent findings which are called in question before this court. 5. The appeal has been admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law framed on 27.2.2006: When the joint family property is acquired by CITB and the compensation awarded is divided amongst the family members by affecting a partition, putting an end to joint family status, whether the site allotted to one of the erstwhile joint family member, under a scheme to allot compensatory sites for acquisition of lands is impressed with the character of joint family property? 6. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant has filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C. requesting permission to lead additional evidence and has produced as many as 7 documents along with the application. The said application is supported by the sworn affidavit of the appellant explaining reasons for delayed production of the documents. Objections have been filed to this application by the 1st respondent- plaintiff. 7. Similar application has been filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff under Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C. producing a copy of the endorsement dated 20.8.2003 issued by City Improvement Trust Board, Mysore, (CITB, for short). This application has been objected to by the learned counsel for the appellant. 8. Any application under Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C. during the pendency of the appeal will have to be heard along with merits. Therefore learned counsel for the parties have submitted their arguments on these two applications as well as on merits. Hence the following point is required to be framed to consider the applications filed under Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C.: Whether the parties to this appeal have made out good grounds to adduce additional evidence at this stage as contemplated under Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C.? 9. Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C. reads as follows: 27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. 9. Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C. reads as follows: 27. Production of additional evidence in Appellate Court.- (1) The parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court. But if-- (a) the court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has refused to admit evidence which ought to have been admitted, or (aa) the party seeking to produce additional evidence, establishes that notwithstanding the exercise of due diligence, such evidence was not within his knowledge or could not, after the exercise of due diligence, be produced by him at the time when the decree appealed against was passed, or (b) the Appellate Court requires any document to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pronounce judgment, or for any other substantial cause, the Appellate Court may allow such evidence or document to be produced, or witness to be examined. (2) Whenever additional evidence is allowed to the produced, by an Appellate Court, the court shall record the reason for its admission. On a plain reading of Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C., it is evident that sufficient grounds have to be made out by a party seeking to adduce additional evidence at appellate stage, more particularly in second appeal filed under Section 100, C.P.C. Granting permission to adduce additional evidence at appellate stage is an exception to the general rule. 10. The appellant has furnished the following seven documents with the application under Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C.: 1) Notice for cancellation of allotment dated 12.11.1970, 2) register extract of property bearing no.294, Nazarbad Mohalla, Mysore, 3) Register extract of property bearing no.135 D Devaraja Urs Road, Devaraj Mohalla, Mysore, 4) proceedings of formation of straight road Government Order dated 24.4.1961, 5) Notification dated 30.8.1977 by CITB 6) Copy of order in W.P. 941/1978 and 7) Notice dated 16.3.1990 Similarly the 1st respondent-plaintiff has filed one document along with the application under Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C. The said document is an endorsement issued by the Commissioner, CITB, Mysore, on 20.8.2003 and the same is addressed to the plaintiff stating that a sum of Rs.17,250/- inclusive of Rs.3,450/- being compensation was paid to Puttaiah relating to acquisition of 414 sq.yards of land on Devaraj Urs Road. It is also mentioned that one site bearing No.165 in Ittigegudu Extension was allotted apart from a site bearing No.135 and No.294, Siddartha Layout, to Narayana, 1st defendant. The said endorsement was given to the plaintiff on an application filed by him seeking allotment of similar sites to him in lieu of acquisition of the property belonging to the joint family. 11. An attempt has been made by the appellant to impress upon this court that the plaintiff had also made an application seeking allotment of a site in his favour and that a site bearing No.2 in Nazarbad Mohalla had been allotted to the plaintiff calling upon him to pay in all Rs.6,792/- and that he did not avail the said offer and therefore the allotment stood cancelled. One more document is filed and the same is in regard to the scheme prepared by the erstwhile Government of Mysuru relating to straightening of Devaraj Urs Road. The purpose of producing this document is to impress upon this court that allotment of sites was not statutory allotment in lieu of acquisition, but it was only an offer and it will not bind CITB. It is further argued that the said allotment was not free, but on collecting upset price of the site. 12. The appellant should have produced the scheme relating to acquisition of sites in Devaraj Urs Road when evidence was adduced by him in the trial court, or at least in the first appellate court. Ex.P6 is the extract of the proceedings of CITB, Mysuru, held on 12.9.1984. It discloses that 3 houses were lost by Puttaiah in connection with straightening of Devaraj Urs Road and therefore a residential site bearing No.294 was allottedo to Narayana (appellant herein) and it was subject to payment of Rs.80/- per sq.yard as price. 13. Ex.D3 is the endorsement issued in favour of the appellant on 13.11.1984 by the same Board. This letter discloses that site No.294 was allotted to Narayana- appellant for rendering 30 years of service in CITB. All these documents have been properly analyzed by the trial court as well as first appellate court. Apart from this, the appellant himself has adduced his oral evidence which is referred to in the judgment. 14. This letter discloses that site No.294 was allotted to Narayana- appellant for rendering 30 years of service in CITB. All these documents have been properly analyzed by the trial court as well as first appellate court. Apart from this, the appellant himself has adduced his oral evidence which is referred to in the judgment. 14. In the light of specific contents of Ex.P6 that the sites bearing Nos.294 and 135 were allotted to Narayana in lieu of acquisition of family properties of Puttaiah, production of documents by the appellant are of no consequence. The whole case revolves round the ground raised by the appellant in regard to the nature of acquisition. Plaintiff has referred to allotment of 2 sites, one in Devaraj Urs Road and another in Siddartha Layout to the appellant is in lieu of acquisition of sites belonging to the joint family. 15. Per contra, the contention of the appellant is that these sites were allotted to him in his individual capacity, that too after partition of joint family and therefore nobody in the family has any right to claim a share. In fact the plaintiff had made an attempt to seek allotment of a site and it had been allotted but he did not pay the amount and therefore the said allotment was cancelled. This aspect is dealt with at length by the trial court and first appellate court while re-assessing the oral and documentary evidence. 16. Sufficient oral and documentary evidence has been placed on record by the parties when they chose to adduce evidence on their behalf in the trial court. No good grounds are made out to adduce additional evidence, that too, at the stage of second appeal. Hence both the applications are devoid of merits and they are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the applications filed under Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C. are dismissed. 17. The substantial question of law came to be framed on 27.2.2006 mainly on the ground raised by the appellant in the appeal memo. What is argued beforeo this court by Mr.T.N.Raghupathy representing the appellant is that soon after severance of joint family in the year 1970, the properties became independent and there was no joint family property at all and therefore any acquisition made by the erstwhile members of joint family would not partake the character of joint family property and therefore they are not partible estates. 18. 18. In fact DW1 was working as an employee in CITB for more than 3 decades and all the members of his family had implicit faith in him thinking that he would uphold their interest in regard to compensation to be received from CITB and allotment of sites in lieu of acquisition of 3 sites by the Board. Admission of DW1 found in paragraph 7 of his cross-examination is referred to in paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment. He has categorically admitted about the co-operation given by him in receiving compensation. He has further admitted the suggestion as true that at the time of acquisition of the said sites, there was a rule prevailing in the CITB to the effect that those persons who had lost lands should be provided with a site in lieu of acquisition apart from compensation amount to be awarded. Admittedly the plaintiff was unmarried when the property in question was acquired. Assertion of PW1 that himself and his mother had immense faith and confidence in the 1st defendant relating to compensation to be paid and allotment of sites has not been controverted by DW1 even in his cross- examination. 19. The 1st defendant has relied on 3 documents and they are marked as Exs.D1 to D3. Ex.D1 is an application dated 8.11.1977 submitted by plaintiff- Subramanya to CITB, Mysuru, seeking allotment of site in Devaraj Urs Road under Straight Road Scheme in 4th Stage, I Phase. It is mentioned in Ex.D1 that the plaintiff was intimated about non-allotment of a site in his favour and he was at liberty to take the amount. 20. Ex.D2 is an unregistered document executed by the plaintiff and his mother-Jayamma in favour of the appellant-1st defendant empowering him to deal with the matter relating to enhancement of compensation and other benefits to be obtained. By virtue of this document, they had given full freedom to him to take any decision and that they would not interfere. Ex.D3 is stated to be an endorsement issued by CITB on 30.11.1984 to the appellant stating that site No.294 in Siddartha Layout had been allotted to him in view of his completion of 30 years of service in the Board. 21. This document has been dealt with at length by the trial court and the first appellate court. Ex.D3 is stated to be an endorsement issued by CITB on 30.11.1984 to the appellant stating that site No.294 in Siddartha Layout had been allotted to him in view of his completion of 30 years of service in the Board. 21. This document has been dealt with at length by the trial court and the first appellate court. Both the courts below have specifically held that Ex.D3 is a got- up document and it is un-understandable as to how somebody could issue such endorsement on behalf of the president of CITB, more particularly when a site in Jaylakshmipuram had been allotted to the 1st defendant relating to 30 years of service in the Board. Mere marking of a document as Ex.D3 would not be sufficient. 22. Normally such certificate will have to be issued by the secretary or some authorized officer of CITB. The chairman will not have the right to issue such certificate. Such endorsement is not supported by any valid resolution passed by the Board. Thus both the courts have specifically held that the 1st defendant has tried to make out a case on the basis of a got-up document. 23. Apart from this, DW1 himself has admitted in his cross-examination that the site in Siddartha Layout was allotted to him as compensatory site. No credible evidence is adduced by him to show that at any point of time, CITB had allotted sites to its employees in recognition of their services. He has denied a suggestion that the site in Jaylakshmipuram was allotted to him as compensatory site. As rightly pointed out by the first appellate court, if the Board had allotted a site in favour of the 1st defendant at Jaylakshmipuram, it is un-understandable how the Board could allot another site in recognition of his services, elsewhere. 24. What is argued before this court by the learned counsel for the appellant is that joint family had come to an end in the year 1970 as per Ex.P9-partition deed and therefore allotment of these two sites in favour of the 1st defendant was in his individual capacity and acquisition was after the severance of the joint family. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with at length by the trial court and first appellate court. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with at length by the trial court and first appellate court. Reliance has been placed on the decisions reported in (i) AIR 1983 SC 409 , (ii) AIR 1963 SC 910 and (iii) AIR 1961 SC 1077 to contend that partial partition is also valid under Hindu law. These decisions have been referred to in page 22 at paragraph 15 of the judgment of the first appellate court. As per the decisions, it has been held that severance of status is brought out when the shares of coparceners are crystallized by quantification of share. When once it is done, any acquisition by any member of the erstwhile joint family cannot be considered as one acquired on behalf of the joint family. 25. In the decision reported in AIR 1972 SC 1279 , the Hon'ble apex court has held that 'if one of the properties remains in possession of one of the members even after severance of status, there is no presumption that the same is acquired by the family.' It is very useful to know from these decisions that there was complete partition and after such partition only, certain acquisitions had been made by one of the members. Therefore it is held that those properties acquired subsequently cannot be regarded as acquisition for and on behalf of the joint family. 26. There cannot be any dispute about the proposition of law reiterated in the decisions referred to above. These decisions are clearly distinguishable on facts vis-a-vis the facts and circumstances of this case, since evidence placed on record in the present case establishes that the partition under Ex.P9 was only partial partition of the properties and not in respect of 'A' schedule property. Even if it is presumed that severance of status was brought about on account of partition effected under Ex.P9, still the question that would be relevant is, whether allotment of a site mentioned in 'B' schedule property was in favour of the 1st defendant in his individual capacity as a divided member. Acquisition of 2 items in 'B' schedule property by the 1st defendant is traceable to the acquisition of 'A' schedule property by the 2nd defendant prior to partition evidence in Ex.P9. Therefore acquisition of two sites in 'B' schedule property has partaken the characteristics of ancestral property. Acquisition of 2 items in 'B' schedule property by the 1st defendant is traceable to the acquisition of 'A' schedule property by the 2nd defendant prior to partition evidence in Ex.P9. Therefore acquisition of two sites in 'B' schedule property has partaken the characteristics of ancestral property. This is supported by the endorsement, Ex.P4 dated 17.5.1995 issued by the secretary of CITB in which it is made clear that item nos.1 and 2 in 'B' schedule have been allotted to the 1st defendant as compensatory sites for acquisition of a house bearing No.678 and 679. 27. Ex.P6 is said to be the extract of proceedings of the meeting of the board of trustees of CITB held on 12.9.1984. This document is signed by the chairman of the Board and it is dated 5.1.1985. The endorsement given by Ex.P6 is on the basis of meeting of board of trustees held on 12.9.1984 by allotting compensatory site in lieu of three houses belonging to the family of Narayana. The authenticity of the same is not challenged in any manner and there is no scope for doubting its authenticity. It discloses that on the said issue, the Board had resolved to grant a residential site bearing No.294 in Siddartha Layout subject to collecting the price at the rate of Rs.80/- per sq.yard. The three houses so acquired did not belong to the appellant absolutely and those three houses were the houses of the family of Puttaiah including the appellant and respondents, and the acquisition was prior to the execution of the partition deed vide Ex.P9. Therefore the trial court and first appellate court have specifically held that the acquisition of two sites by the appellant is relatable to acquisition of three houses by the 2nd defendant-Board, that too, prior to the partition. 28. In fact, parties could not comprehend soon after acquisition of sites that the Board would allot sites as compensatory sites. Therefore there was no specific agreement between the parties in this regard. Having regard to the two sites being allotted as compensatory sites, acquisition by the appellant partakes the characteristic of joint family property. The first appellate court has given valid and cogent reasons as to how acquisition of two sites could be related to acquisition of three houses by the 2nd defendant. Having regard to the two sites being allotted as compensatory sites, acquisition by the appellant partakes the characteristic of joint family property. The first appellate court has given valid and cogent reasons as to how acquisition of two sites could be related to acquisition of three houses by the 2nd defendant. Further the first appellate court has held that the contents of Ex.D2-agreement is in respect of sharing of the compensation and the same has nothing to do with sharing of a site that may be allotted in future as compensatory sites. What is forthcoming in Ex.D2 is that parties were not interested in pursuing the matter for higher compensation in the court below and they had no objection for the 1st defendant to pursue the matter for higher compensation before the appropriate court of law and that Ex.D2 does not even remotely indicate that the plaintiff had relinquished his right in regard to compensatory site that would be allotted by the CITB. 29. The trial court has given cogent reasons on all issues after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. Even the first appellate court dealing with an appeal under Section 96, C.P.C. has re- assessed the entire oral and documentary evidence placed on record. As per the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble apex court in the case of SANTHOSH HAZARI .v. PURUSHOTTAM TIWARI ([2001] 3 SCC 179), no elaborate reasons need be assigned by the first appellate court if it intends to confirm the judgment of the trial court. If the first appellate court intends to upturn a well considered judgment, then only it should come to close quarters and assign its own reasons indicating as to where the trial court has gone wrong and what exactly should be the approach. 30. The judgment of the first appellate court shows that a comprehensive point for consideration is framed and it has assessed the entire oral and documentary evidence on record. No perversity or illegality is found in the approach adopted by both the courts. On the other hand, they have adopted right approach to the state of affairs. 31. Even calculation of shares is based on proper application of mind. No perversity or illegality is found in the approach adopted by both the courts. On the other hand, they have adopted right approach to the state of affairs. 31. Even calculation of shares is based on proper application of mind. When three houses belonging to the joint family of Puttaiah were available, three shares were effected allotting one notional share to deceased Puttaiah and out of the said notional share of Puttaiah, it has been divided into 5 shares and accordingly plaintiff and 1st defendant have been allotted 7/15th share each and 1/15th share is allotted to the 3rd defendant. The trial court has assigned valid reasons as to how the plaintiff and 1st defendant had failed to prove that the 3rd defendant had relinquished her share ion the joint family property by receiving Rs.5,000/- as her share. In the light of the same, the trial court has allotted 1/15th share to her and the same has been upheld by the first appellate court. 32. Viewed from any angle, there is absolutely no scope to interfere with the well considered findings on facts relating to the allotment of two compensatory sites in favour of the appellant-1st defendant on the basis of acquisition of 3 houses belonging to the joint family. Further, the factual finding that the allotment of 2 compensatory sites is relatable to acquisition of 3 houses belonging to Puttaiah, is also justified. Pursuant to the division of status of joint family vide Ex.P9, the site so allotted to the erstwhile members of the joint family under the scheme to allot compensatory sites for acquisition of lands is definitely impressed with the character of joint family properties. Therefore the substantial question of law framed on 27.2.2006 is answered in the affirmative. Accordingly no good grounds are made out to interfere with the well considered finding on facts and the reasons assigned by the trial court and first appellate court. Consequently the appeal will have to be dismissed. 33. The suit is of the year 1990 and 25 years have passed by. It is submitted that a case is already filed for drawing final decree. If it is so, the court dealing with final decree proceedings will have to expedite the same keeping in mind the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble apex court in the case of M.L.SUBBARAYA SHETTY & OTHERS .v. M.L.NAGAPPA SHETTY & OTHERS (AIR 2002 SC 2066). It is submitted that a case is already filed for drawing final decree. If it is so, the court dealing with final decree proceedings will have to expedite the same keeping in mind the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble apex court in the case of M.L.SUBBARAYA SHETTY & OTHERS .v. M.L.NAGAPPA SHETTY & OTHERS (AIR 2002 SC 2066). 34. In the result, the following order is passed: ORDER The appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial court in O.S.243/90 and of the first appellate court in R.A.32/00. Parties to bear their own costs. It is made clear that the court dealing with final decree proceedings will have to expedite the matter keeping in mind the principles enunciated by the Hon'ble apex court in the case of M.L.SUBBARAYA SHETTY (supra). Send a copy of this judgment to the trial court at the earliest.