JUDGMENT E.S. Indiresh, J. - This Regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21st August, 2014 passed by the Judge, Family Court at Davanagere in OS No.13 of 2012. This appeal is preferred by the defendants No.1 and 2 before the Court below. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this appeal are referred to their status before the Court below. 3. The relevant facts of the case in brief are that, defendant No.1 is the wife of the plaintiff as well defendant No.2 and defendants No.6 to 9 are the children of plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 have purchased schedule property jointly on 07th May, 1990 by way of registered sale deed from one Mohammed Haneef Sab and accordingly, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have become joint owners of the suit schedule property. Pursuant to the execution of sale deed, the names of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 has been mutated in the respective revenue records. The schedule property, admittedly, was a vacant site at the time of purchase made by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 on 07th May, 1990. The case of the plaintiff is that out of his earnings and by investing huge amount, he has put up a residential house in the suit schedule property by constructing a ground floor and the first floor. In the meanwhile, as there was certain dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, the plaintiff had filed suit in OS No.33 of 2001 and thereafter at the intervention of the elders and as the children were minors during the said period, the plaintiff has withdrew the suit on 21st July, 2001. Thereafter, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 had lived together and continued to lead a peaceful life. Since the plaintiff has put up construction on the schedule property by investing huge amount and accordingly he has let out shops in the suit schedule property to defendants No.3 to 5. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 has not shown any respect to the plaintiff and repeatedly she was creating problem in the family and accordingly the plaintiff was thrown out from the house in the month of May, 2012. Thereafter, the defendant No.1 has not shown any respect to the plaintiff and repeatedly she was creating problem in the family and accordingly the plaintiff was thrown out from the house in the month of May, 2012. The defendant No.1 is residing in the ground floor and since the plaintiff was not in the house and as such defendant No.1 has let out the first floor and second floor and she is receiving the rents from the respective premises of the first and second floors, and as such the plaintiff has made a claim for his share in the suit schedule property which came to be refused by the defendant No.1. Accordingly, the plaintiff has filed OS No.13 of 2012 before the Trial Court and sought for partition and separate possession in respect of suit schedule property. Pursuant to the summons issued by the Trial Court, defendants have appeared through their respective counsel. The defendants No.1 and 2 have filed the written statement denying the averments made in the plaint with regard to treating the suit schedule property as a joint family property of the plaintiff. The defendants No.1 and 2 have stated that though the suit schedule property was purchased jointly by the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 through a registered sale deed dated 07th May, 1990, however, defendants No.1 and 2 have denied the averment made by the plaintiff that he has paid the entire sale consideration amount at the time of registration of the said sale deed. The defendants No.1 and 2 have also denied the fact that they are receiving the rents from the premises in the first and second floor as stated by the plaintiff. The principal contention of the defendant No.1 is that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit as the suit is one between the husband and wife and therefore the suit is liable to dismissed on the said ground alone. It is further stated by the defendants No.1 and 2 that the suit schedule property has been purchased out of the earnings of not only the plaintiff but also earnings of defendant No.1 and their children. It is further contended that the contribution made by the children should be taken into account. It is further stated by the defendants No.1 and 2 that the suit schedule property has been purchased out of the earnings of not only the plaintiff but also earnings of defendant No.1 and their children. It is further contended that the contribution made by the children should be taken into account. It is further stated by the defendant No.1 that since the children of the plaintiff have contributed towards the consideration amount in the sale deed at the time of the registration of the sale deed, and as such, the sale deed was executed in the joint name and accordingly the defendant Nos. 1 & 2 have contended that all the sons of plaintiff and defendant No.1 are having equal share in the suit schedule property. It is also averred that the children have contributed towards the construction of the building in the suit schedule property and accordingly defendants No.1 and 2 have stated that the relief sought for by the plaintiff for partition is without any merit and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Defendants No.3 to 5 are the tenants and they have adopted the written statement filed by the defendants No.1 and 2. Defendants No.6 to 9 have also filed a memo seeking leave of the Court to adopt the written statement filed by the defendants No.1 and 2. 5. The Trial Court, after considering the pleadings, has formulated the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff proves that he alone invested the amount for the purpose of putting constructions in the suit schedule property as alleged? (2) Whether defendants prove that the suit is bad for joinder and non-joinder of parties as alleged? (3) Whether the defendants prove that this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as alleged in para-8 of the written statement? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession in the suit schedule property? If so, to what share? (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits? If so, at what rate? (6) To what relief, if any the parties are entitled? 6. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, was examined himself as PW1 and produced exhibits P1 to P6. Defendant No.2 has adduced evidence as DW1 and produced exhibits D1 to D3. (5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits? If so, at what rate? (6) To what relief, if any the parties are entitled? 6. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, was examined himself as PW1 and produced exhibits P1 to P6. Defendant No.2 has adduced evidence as DW1 and produced exhibits D1 to D3. The Trial Court, after hearing the parties and after considering the materials on record, has decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and ordered that the plaintiff is entitled for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit schedule property by metes and bounds. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2014 passed by the Trial Court, the defendants No.1 and 2 have preferred the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court that contending that the Trial Court has misconstrued the documents on record and has not properly appreciated the evidence adduced by the defendants therein. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, as the dispute was not only with regard to the husband and wife but also with regard to the other parties. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, as the dispute was not only with regard to the husband and wife but also with regard to the other parties. The principal submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Trial Court has not considered the fact that not only the plaintiff has invested for the purpose of purchasing the suit schedule property, but also the children of the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have equally contributed for the purpose of purchasing of the suit schedule property and also for the purpose of construction of the building and as such the Trial Court has not considered the said aspect of the matter in the right perspective with regard to the fact that appellant No.1 is also having sufficient income for the purpose of construction of the house and in view of the same the finding recorded by the Trial Court conferring half share in favour of the plaintiff is not correct and accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Trial Court has ignored Exhibits D1 to D3, which would clearly establish the fact that there was agreement of sale which goes to show that the defendants have sufficient income for the purpose of construction of house and despite the same, the Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree which requires to be set aside by this Court. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent No.1 herein supports the impugned judgment and decree and submitted that the Trial Court has considered the entire materials placed on record and on appreciation of the facts, has passed the judgment and decree which does not call for interference by this Court. He particularly invited my attention to Exhibits P4, P5 and P6. Exhibit P4 is the Transfer certificate of S. Hanumantha (defendant No.6); exhibit P5 is the dakhalati vahi nakalu showing the date of birth of Amareshwara S. (Ambarish) (defendant No.7) as 19th March, 1982. Exhibit P6 is the certificate issued by Shri Durgambika Samyukta Proudha Shale, Davanagere wherein the date of birth of Basavaraja. Exhibit P4 is the Transfer certificate of S. Hanumantha (defendant No.6); exhibit P5 is the dakhalati vahi nakalu showing the date of birth of Amareshwara S. (Ambarish) (defendant No.7) as 19th March, 1982. Exhibit P6 is the certificate issued by Shri Durgambika Samyukta Proudha Shale, Davanagere wherein the date of birth of Basavaraja. S (defendant No.9) is 01st January, 1992 and stated that since the defendants No.6, 7 and 9 are minor children at the time of execution of sale deed dated 07th May, 1990 and as such, the contention raised by the appellants with regard to the fact that these defendants have also contributed for the purpose of the land as well as construction of the building cannot be accepted. It is further contended that the age of defendant No.2, as on the date of filing of the suit, is 35 years. The suit schedule property was purchased on 07th May, 1990 and as such, inference may be taken to the effect that apart from defendants No. 6 to 9, the defendant No.2 also aged about 18 years at the time of purchase of suit schedule property, and as such, there would not be any income and contribution made by the defendant No.2 to purchase the suit schedule property as well as construction of building during 1995, and therefore, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent No.1 contends that, the Trial Court, having considered the entire factual aspects on record, has rightly decreed the suit that the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 further submitted that since the plaintiff has raised the question relating to jurisdiction of the Trial Court and in view of Section 7(c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Family Court at Davanagere has jurisdiction to try the same in respect of the property. Hence, he submits that the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court does not call for any interference by this Court. 9. After considering the entire material on record, the points for consideration is: i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for half share in the suit schedule property or whether the defendants prove that they have contributed towards the purchase of suit schedule property along with the plaintiff? ii) Whether the trial Court has committed any error in law or on facts while decreeing the suit partly? ii) Whether the trial Court has committed any error in law or on facts while decreeing the suit partly? iii) Whether the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be interfered with by this Court? 10. I have carefully gone through the pleadings and documents placed on record by the parties before court below. It is not in dispute that defendant No.1 is the wife of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 and defendants No.6 to 9 are the children of plaintiff and defendant No.1. It is also not in dispute that the suit schedule property was purchased by the plaintiff and defendant No.1 jointly under the registered sale deed dated 07th May, 1990. It is also not in dispute that at the time of purchase of suit schedule property it was a vacant site, however, the ground, first and second floors were constructed in the year 1995. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff and defendant have let out a portion of the suit schedule property in favour of defendants No.3 to 5. The plaintiff, though has contended that he has paid the entire amount to the vendor, but out of love and affection, the plaintiff has included the name of his wife (defendant No.1) in the sale deed as contended in the plaint. However, the plaintiff has not placed any record to that effect and in view of the same, the recitals in the sale deed should be considered in entirety and therefore, judgment and decree passed by the trial Court apportions the share of the plaintiff as just and proper. 11. I have also gone through the recitals of the sale deed dated 07th May, 1990 which clearly establish the fact that the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are joint owners of the suit schedule property and the same is a vacant site. Strangely, though there is dispute between the plaintiff and defendant No.1, the defendant No.1 has not stepped into the witness box to prove her contentions. The defendant No.2, who was examined as DW1 has deposed to the effect that not only the plaintiff, but also defendant No.1, 2 and 6 to 9 have also contributed for the purpose of purchase of suit schedule property as well as construction of building. The defendant No.2, who was examined as DW1 has deposed to the effect that not only the plaintiff, but also defendant No.1, 2 and 6 to 9 have also contributed for the purpose of purchase of suit schedule property as well as construction of building. Except the oral evidence made by DW1, nothing has been produced with regard to the source of independent income of Defendants No.1, 2 and 6 to 9. Admittedly, the defendant No.2 was aged approximately 18 years as on the date of execution of the sale deed dated 07th May, 1990; and defendants No.6 to 9 were minor children and in view of the same, it cannot be accepted that they have contributed for purchase of the suit schedule property or towards construction of the building and as such, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted. 12. Having gone through the entire pleadings, and evidentiary part as well the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and in my considered opinion, there is no pleading or document to show the factum of any contribution made by the Defendants No.1, 2, 6 to 9 towards the purchase of the property by the plaintiff and defendant No.1. The plaintiff has stated that, his occupation was of masonery as also he was doing contractor work. Defendant No.1 is the house-wife and on perusal of the entire evidence on record it would not support the contention of defendant No.1 that she has contributed her independent income to purchase the suit schedule property. Suffice it to say that apart from defendant No.2, the remaining defendants have not made any efforts to examine any independent witnesses to arrive at the conclusion that they have also contributed to the purchase of property in question and in view of the same, the Trial Court has rightly answered issue No.1 in favour of the plaintiff which cannot be faulted with. The Defendants No.1 and 2 have also produced Exhibits D1 to D3 to establish the fact that they were also having independent income during the period in which the sale deed dated 07th May, 1990 was executed as well for the construction of house. For the reasons and appreciation of material on record and referred to above, I do not find a good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. For the reasons and appreciation of material on record and referred to above, I do not find a good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. In view of the same, the point No.(i) is to be answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. I have considered the recitals in the sale deed and the documents produced by defendants No.1 and 2 and the same could not be considered to be as a material fact to arrive at the conclusion that defendants No.1 and 2 have also contributed to purchase the suit schedule property as well as for construction of building and as such, the finding recorded by the Court below that the Defendants No.1 and 2 have no independent source of income to purchase the suit schedule property and have contributed towards construction of the house in the suit schedule property is rightly held against the defendants by the trial court as impugned judgment and decree is of well-founded reason based on the appreciation of documents and evidence on record and the same cannot be faulted with. Having regard to the discussion made above and having regard to the conclusion arrived at by the Family Court with regard to the fact that the plaintiff has purchased the suit schedule property along with the defendant No.1 and since the finding recorded by the trial court that the children of plaintiff have not contributed anything towards the purchase of the property in question, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court does not call for interference by this Court. 13. As regards Issue No.2, the plaintiff has made necessary application before the Court below and has impleaded defendants No.6 to 9 as parties to the proceedings as per order dated 29th October, 2013 and in view of the same interference with regard to issue No.2 does not call for. 14. The defendants have contended that the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit on the ground that the suit is not only between the husband and wife but the interest of the children also is to be looked into. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') stipulates about the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act') stipulates about the jurisdiction of the Family Court. Section 7(1)(c) of the said Act states that a suit or proceeding between the parties to a marriage with respect to the property of the parties or of either of them can be tried by a Family Court and since the language of provision is very clear and unambiguous as such, the dispute relating to the parties and also the property of the parties is maintainable before the Family Court. The said aspect has been further appreciated by the Trial Court by relying upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of A.S. GOWRI v. B.R.SATISH, (1992) 4 KarLJ 108 and in the case of LAKSHMIDEVARAJE URS V/S G.P. ASHARANI, (2002) 5 KarLJ 580 . In view of the same reasoning given by the learned trial Judge negating the contentions raised by the defendants on issue No.3 is correct and the same does not call for interference by this Court. 15. In the case of SMT.A.S.GOWRI (supra) having considered the scope and ambit of Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Division Bench has held as follows: "We are of the view that the intendment is to confer wider jurisdiction on a family court in respect of disputes arising between the parties to the marriage including the dispute relating to their properties or the properties of either of them, obviously, with a view to see that the litigation between the parties in that behalf is settled once for all avoiding the usual expenditure involved in a litigation." 16. The plain language of the explanation (c) to Section 7 of the Act refers to suit or proceedings between the parties to a marriage with regard to the property of the parties. Admittedly, in the instant appeal, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are the husband and wife and the plaintiff-husband has filed the suit for partition, seeking half share in the suit schedule property and as such, the finding recorded by the trial Court for issue No.3 does not call for any interference by this Court. 17. It is also made clear that the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.33/2001 against the defendant No.1 and withdrawn the same. 17. It is also made clear that the plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.33/2001 against the defendant No.1 and withdrawn the same. I have gone through the examination-in-chief of the PW1 dated 04.07.2013, whereunder, the plaintiff has stated that pursuant to the interference made by the well-wishers and friends of the plaintiff and the defendants and as such, as a result of oral compromise entered into between the parties including the defendants herein, the plaintiff has filed a memo dated 21.07.2001 in O.S.No.33/2001, seeking dismissal of the suit as the dispute between the parties is settled out of Court. In this regard, though the appellants herein have stated that the instant suit is not maintainable on the ground that the plaintiff has withdrawn the earlier suit in O.S.No.33/2001, however, a perusal of the entire cross-examination of PW1 and also DW1 would make it clear that pursuant to the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.33/2001, plaintiff and defendants had joined together and continued to live as family members and as such, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants in this regard is baseless and without any merit. The trial Court has considered the entire documents produced by the parties and having taken note of the factual aspect of the case, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 have jointly purchased the suit schedule property vide Ex.P1 and therefore, I do not find any justification to interfere with the well-reasoned judgment rendered by the trial Court. In view of the discussions made above, the points No.(i) to (iii) are held in favour of the plaintiff. For the reasons stated above, I pass the following: ORDER 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The judgment and decree dated 21.08.2014 passed in O.S.No.13/2012 by the Judge, Family Court at Davangere is hereby confirmed. No order as to costs.