JUDGMENT : Budihal R.B., J. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and also the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 1 and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 on admission. 2. The judgment and decree, dated 6.6.2009 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn), Sedam in O.S. No. 8/2005 and the judgment and the decree dated 11th January 2010 passed by the III Additional District Judge, Gulbarga in R.A. No. 119/2010 are called in question in this Regular Second Appeal by the appellants/plaintiffs. 3. The brief facts leading to filing of the suit before the Trial Court are that the defendant No. 1 is the father of the plaintiffs. One Jagadevi who is guardian of minor plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 is the wife of defendant No. 1 Defendant No. 2 is the son of defendant No. 1 through his second wife Venkatamma. Defendant No. 3 is the third wife of defendant No. 1. The suit properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. Jagadevi the first wife of defendant No. 1 filed suit against the defendant No. 1 in O.S. No. 19/1983 seeking the relief of maintenance, in which suit the defendant No. 1 and plaintiff entered into compromise and compromise decree was also drawn. Thereafter the defendant No. 1 and his wife and even the plaintiff Nos. 1 to 3 were living happily and there was cordial terms with them. Plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 born to defendant No. 1 from his first wife Jagadevi. Plaintiff No. 1 was married during 1986 while marriage of plaintiff No. 2 performed during the year 1998-99. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 are residing in their husbands house. But since last year defendant No. 1 at the instigation of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 again started illtreatment and neglecting the plaintiffs. Still plaintiff No. 3's marriage was yet to be performed since she attained the marriageable age. But the mother of the plaintiffs has no source of income. Hence the plaintiffs and their mother requested the defendants to perform the marriage of plaintiff No. 3, but the defendant No. 1 is not showing any response. Plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 are still studying. Defendant No. 1 is avoiding his responsibility of maintaining plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5. The mother of the plaintiffs issued legal notice for making provision for maintenance of plaintiff Nos. Plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 are still studying. Defendant No. 1 is avoiding his responsibility of maintaining plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5. The mother of the plaintiffs issued legal notice for making provision for maintenance of plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 and also for meeting out the marriage expenses of plaintiff No. 3, or else effecting partition in the suit schedule properties which are ancestral joint family properties. It is further pleaded that the lands bearing Sy.Nos. 319/2, 229, 49/1 and 49/6 are acquired out of income of ancestral joint family properties. These lands are purchased in the name of defendant Nos. 1 to 3. The marriage of the defendant No. 3 with defendant No. 1 is illegal and void abinitio. The defendant No. 1 permanent employee of Vasavadatta cement factory, Sedam and getting monthly salary of Rs. 7,000/-. The defendant No. 1 is also getting the income from agricultural establishment. He is refusing to maintain plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5. The defendant No. 1 is not giving any share in the crop grown in the suit lands. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition and separate possession and also for the relief of maintenance of plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5. 4. Defendants appeared in the said suit. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3 have not filed the written statement. Defendant No. 1 filed the written statement contending that there is no cause of action to the plaintiffs for filing the suit. He has also denied the averments at para Nos. 3 to 9 of the plaint, but however he has admitted that Jagadevi had instituted a suit against defendant No. 1 seeking the relief of maintenance in O.S. No. 19/1983. It is also admitted that in the said suit the defendant and plaintiff entered into compromise. It is admitted that the plaintiff Nos. 4 and 5 are born to defendant No. 1 through Jagadevi. Further admitted that marriage of plaintiff No. 1 was performed in the year 1986, while the plaintiff No. 2 was performed during 1998-99. It is specifically denied that lands bearing Sy.Nos. 319/2, 229, 49/1 and 49/6 are acquired in the name of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 out of income of joint family properties. It is contended that the lands bearing Sy.Nos. 319/2, 229 and the house bearing No. 1-11/2 standing in the name of defendant No. 3 while land bearing Sy. It is specifically denied that lands bearing Sy.Nos. 319/2, 229, 49/1 and 49/6 are acquired in the name of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 out of income of joint family properties. It is contended that the lands bearing Sy.Nos. 319/2, 229 and the house bearing No. 1-11/2 standing in the name of defendant No. 3 while land bearing Sy. No. 49/1 and 49/6 appearing in the name of defendant No. 1. It is denied that these properties are purchased out of joint family funds. It is denied that the defendant No. 1 is getting monthly salary of Rs. 7,000/-. Jagadevi is not the legally wedded wife of the defendant No. 1. One Venkatamma is the first wife of defendant No. 1 and she gave birth to defendant No. 2. Defendant No. 2 is son of defendant No. 1 through his first wife Venkatamma. Plaintiffs are illegitimate children of defendant No. 1. There is no ancestral property except the suit house. It is further pleaded the suit lands are acquired by defendant Nos. 2 and 3. There was no joint family. There was no nucleus for acquisition of joint family properties. The properties are standing in the name of defendant No. 2 is also acquired out of the land compensation amount. 5. On the basis of these pleadings the Trial Court framed the following as many as 9 issues; (1) Whether plaintiffs prove that their mother Jagadevi was legally wedded wife of defendant No. 1? (2) Whether plaintiffs prove that they are legitimate children of defendant No. 1? (3) Whether plaintiffs prove that plaintiff Nos. 3 to 5 are entitled to maintain out of income of the suit properties till handing over possession of their share in the suit properties? (4) Whether plaintiffs prove that the suit properties are joint properties between plaintiffs and defendants and plaintiffs are having share in the suit property? If so, what is the actual share of the plaintiffs in the suit properties? (5) Whether plaintiffs prove that defendants have denied their share and refused to hand over the possession by effecting partition in the suit properties? (6) Whether defendants prove that suit properties are not the ancestral joint family properties, but they are acquired by self earning of defendants 1 and 2? (7) Whether plaintiffs-3 to 5 are entitled for maintenance; of Rs. (6) Whether defendants prove that suit properties are not the ancestral joint family properties, but they are acquired by self earning of defendants 1 and 2? (7) Whether plaintiffs-3 to 5 are entitled for maintenance; of Rs. 2,000/- per month to each from the defendants and defendants are able to provide so much of the maintenance? (8) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for the decree of suit as prayed in para-11 of the plaint? (9) To what order or decree? 6. The parties have led their evidence. Ultimately the Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs partly and rejected the claim of the plaintiffs in respect of properties which are claimed to be self acquired properties. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiffs preferred the appeal before the 1st Appellate Court and the 1st Appellate Court after re-appreciating the materials, ultimately dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellants/plaintiffs are before this Court in this Regular Second Appeal. 7. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellants/plaintiffs and also the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants during the course of arguments made the submission that looking to the contention, it clearly goes to show that the properties is in respect of which, the Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs is illegal and it is not sustainable in law. Learned counsel submitted that these properties are also purchased by investing joint family funds and there was no self acquisition and there was no such income to purchase the property without the aid and assistance of joint family funds. Learned counsel submitted that the Trial Court ought to have decreed the suit even in respect of these properties also. It is the contention of the learned counsel that the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court in decreeing in respect of the some of the properties and dismissing in respect of some other properties is patently illegal. The Trial Court, if at all the suit is to be dismissed, it ought to have dismissed as a whole or if it is decreed, it should have been in respect of all the properties. The Trial Court, if at all the suit is to be dismissed, it ought to have dismissed as a whole or if it is decreed, it should have been in respect of all the properties. Hence, the learned counsel made the submission that the evidence placed on record before the Trial Court to show that the said lands were also joint family lands acquired out of joint family funds were not properly appreciated by the Trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court and both the Courts have wrongly proceeded to hold that they are the self acquisitions of defendant No. 1. Hence, the learned counsel submitted that the matter requires in this appeal to be enquired into. Substantial question of law is also involved in this appeal. Hence the appeal may be admitted. 9. Per contra the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1/defendant during the course of arguments made the submission, firstly there is no substantial question involved in this appeal. Learned counsel submitted that whether the properties are acquired by self earnings and whether there are self acquired properties or they are purchased by investing joint family funds, is purely factual aspects which has gone into by both the Courts below and comes to the conclusion that they are self acquisition of the defendant and accordingly the plaintiffs' suit in respect of these properties has been dismissed. Learned counsel submitted that to consider whether properties are self acquired or joint family properties the sale deeds were produced and other documents were also placed on record and the Courts below have considered this aspect and taken a decision that they are self acquisition. Hence it is his contention that no question of law is involved to ascertain these things. It is also his contention that these factual aspects were considered and there is concurrent findings of the Courts below and as no substantial question of law involved in this appeal. There is no case for admission and it has to be dismissed at the admission stage itself. 10. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 adopted the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and also made submission that the properties standing in the name of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the self acquisition and they are not the joint family properties. 11. 10. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 adopted the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 and also made submission that the properties standing in the name of Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the self acquisition and they are not the joint family properties. 11. I have perused the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum, judgment and decree passed by the Courts below, so also I have considered the oral submissions made by the learned counsels on both sides at the bar. . 12. Looking to the pleadings presented by the parties before the Trial Court it is the claim of the plaintiffs that all the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties wherein the plaintiffs are having the share, but the defence of the defendants specifically they have pleaded that which properties are self acquisition by the defendants and they are not the joint family properties. Looking to the reasoning adopted by the Trial Court as well as the 1st Appellate Court, the oral evidence led by the parties before the Trial Court were appreciated and also re-appreciated and ultimately the Courts below comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were not at all established that the properties which are claimed to be self acquired properties of the defendants have purchased by investing joint family funds. When the properties are standing in the name of particular member of the joint Hindu ancestral family, there is presumption that these properties are self acquired properties of that particular member of the family and burden of proving is on the persons who are contending that they are also joint family member. So far as the properties are concerned, there is no presumption that they are joint. So, the burden was on the part of the plaintiffs to establish the satisfaction of the Trial Court in view of their plaint averments. But considering the materials placed on record, the plaintiffs were failed to establish this aspect and ultimately the defendants were able to prove the contention that those survey number in respect of which the Trial Court rejected the claim of the plaintiffs are the self acquired properties of the defendants. As it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1, it is purely factual aspect to ascertain whether the properties are self acquisition or they are joint family properties. As it is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1, it is purely factual aspect to ascertain whether the properties are self acquisition or they are joint family properties. Hence, when these aspects were considered properly by both the Courts below, recorded concurrent findings, in this appeal no substantial question of law involved. There is no merit in the appeal. Accordingly the same is dismissed at the admission stage itself.