JUDGMENT N.S. Sanjay Gowda, J. - The plaintiffs are in second appeal. 2. The genealogy, which is not in dispute is as fol lows: 3. Chinnawwa, the wife and her daughter Neelawwa, representing the branch of Kalakappa (the first son of Sangappa) filed a suit for partition against Kalakappa's brother Shankarappa (defendant No.1) and his son Sangappa (defendant No.2). 4. It was their case that item No.2A properties were joint family properties and they were entitled to half a share. They contended that item No.2B i.e., house properties had been separated from VPC Nos.422, 423 and 493 and after the division, VPC Nos.422/A, 423/A and 693/A were entered in the name of the f irst defendant and in respect of VPC Nos.422/B, 423/B and 693/B, the names of the plaintif fs and third defendant had been entered. They therefore contended that in respect of suit 2B properties, it was only the plaintif fs and third defendant, who had 1/3rd share each. 5. Their contention was that despite several requests, the defendants had refused to partition the properties and hence, they were constrained to f ile the suit. 6. The defendants, on appearance, did not dispute the relationship of the parties but they denied that the plaintiffs had half a share in al l the suit 2A properties. They contended that item No.6 of 2A schedule properties were purchased by second defendant out of his own savings and similarly, the 1st defendant had purchased item No.7 of 2A. 7. They also contended that the f irst defendant had out of his earnings, celebrated the marriages of the first plaintif f and third defendant and thereafter in the year 1994, in the presence of elders, oral partition of the joint family properties took place and allotted item No.4 of para 2A properties. It was contend that after the death of second plaintif f, the same would devolve on the f irst plaintif f and the third defendant. 8. In other words, the defendants contended that they had already oral ly partitioned the joint family properties and in the said oral partition, item No.4 had been al lotted to second plaintif f and they set up the further plea that two suit properties i.e., item Nos.6 and 7 were purchased out of their own earnings. 9. 8. In other words, the defendants contended that they had already oral ly partitioned the joint family properties and in the said oral partition, item No.4 had been al lotted to second plaintif f and they set up the further plea that two suit properties i.e., item Nos.6 and 7 were purchased out of their own earnings. 9. The Trial Court, on consideration of the evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs had been able to establ ish that al l the suit 2A properties were the joint family properties and the defendants had failed to establ ish that item Nos.6 and 7 were the properties acquired by them out of their own income. The Trial Court, accordingly, granted half a share in 2A properties and 1/3rd share each to the plaintif fs No.1 and 2 and the third defendant. 10. The defendants No.1 and 2, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal. 11. The Appel late Court, on re-appreciation of the evidence, came to the conclusion that the plaintif fs had failed to establish that the suit properties were joint family properties and it held that there was already an oral partition and hence, the suit was required to be dismissed. It accordingly al lowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. 12. It is against this judgment of this lower Appellate Court, this second appeal has been preferred. 13. The substantial question of law which arises for consideration in this second appeal is, 1) Whether the Appel late Court could have dismissed the suit for partition when the defendants No.1 and 2 had failed to establ ish that there was an oral partition in the year 1994? 2) Whether the Appel late Court could have come to the conclusion that the oral partition set up by the defendants in the year 1994 had been establ ished on the basis of Exs.P-9 and P-13? 3) Whether the Appel late Court could have come to the conclusion that Item No 6 and 7 of 2A suit properties were the self acquired properties of the defendants 1 and 2? 14. As stated above, it is not in dispute that even according to the plaintif fs, the suit properties (barring item No.6 and 7) were joint family properties. 14. As stated above, it is not in dispute that even according to the plaintif fs, the suit properties (barring item No.6 and 7) were joint family properties. It was the specif ic case of the defendants No.1 and 2 that there had been an oral partition in the year 1994, in which, they had given the second plaintif f item No.4 of 2A properties. 15. Exs.P-9 and P-13 are not disputed by the defendants. Under these exhibits, a vardi was given to the authorities for change of entries in the year 1988. This Vardi, as a matter of fact, clearly states that the properties mentioned therein were the properties standing in the name of the propositus Sangappa and on his death, the entries were being changed in favour of both the plaintif fs and defendants. This fact by itself would establ ish that the properties mentioned in Ex.P-9 were the joint family properties. 16. Though the defendants No.1 and 2 set up the plea of an oral partition, there was absolutely no evidence forthcoming either in terms of a vardi being given pursuant to the oral partition or any other such supporting document to indicate that there had indeed been a partition in the year 1994. The Appel late Court, however, rel ied upon Exs.D-3 and D-4, property extracts, to come to the conclusion that there was an earl ier oral partition. 17. The Appel late Court has basical ly ignored Ex.P-13, a resolution passed by Panchayat in the year 1996, in which, it is clearly stated that the house properties i.e., item No.2B properties which were standing in the name of Sangappa, were being changed in favour of his legal heirs i.e., his daughter-in-law and his son. In my view, Ex.P-13 does not even remotely indicate that there had been a partition. If at al l there had indeed a partition in the year 1994, the resolution of the year 1996 should have been indicated the factum of the oral partition and that the entries were being changed because of the oral partition. In the absence of any such statement in Ex.P-13, in my view, the plea of oral partition set up by the defendants No.1 and 2 wil l have to fail. 18. In the absence of any such statement in Ex.P-13, in my view, the plea of oral partition set up by the defendants No.1 and 2 wil l have to fail. 18. If the oral partition set up by defendants No.1 and 2 were to fail, the necessary consequence would be that item No.2A properties will also have to be held to be joint family properties, in which, the plaintif fs and defendant No.3 would be entitled for half a share together. 19. The assertion of the defendants No.1 and2 that item Nos.6 and 7 were their self acquired properties cannot also be accepted, since admittedly no evidence has been produced to show the source of income for defendants No.1 and 2 to purchase the properties. Admittedly, the item No.6 was purchased in the name of second defendant for a consideration of Rs.2,73,000/- and item No.7 was purchased in the name of f irst defendant was for a sale consideration of Rs.2,66,000/-. If the f irst and second defendants' contention that a sum in excess of Rs.5,00,000/- was saved by them out of the services rendered by them in the military, they ought to have produced some evidence of their income and their savings to substantiate their contention. Admittedly, there is absolutely no evidence forthcoming records to the effect that they were in a position of earning and were possessing a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to purchase Item No 6 and 7 of 2A suit properties. 20. The Trial Court, was therefore justif ied in coming to the conclusion that the defendants No.1 and 2 had failed to prove that the item Nos.6 and 7 were the properties earned out of individual income of the defendants No.1 and 2. The Appellate Court has completely ignored this aspect and has come to the conclusion that item Nos.6 and 7 were the properties of defendants No.1 and 2. 21. As stated earlier, since the 1994 partition itself was not proved, the reasoning of the Appellate Court for its further conclusions regarding Item No 6 and 7 of Suit 2 A properties cannot be sustained. 22. 21. As stated earlier, since the 1994 partition itself was not proved, the reasoning of the Appellate Court for its further conclusions regarding Item No 6 and 7 of Suit 2 A properties cannot be sustained. 22. As a consequence, I answer the question of law in favour of plaintiffs and hold that the Appellate Court was not justif ied in coming to the conclusion that there was an oral partition on the basis of Exs.D-3 and D-4 and that the defendants 1 and 2 had proved that Item No 6 and 7 were the self acquired properties of the 1st and 2nd defendant. 23. The judgment of the Appellate Court accordingly is set aside and the judgment of the Trial Court is restored. The second appeal is accordingly allowed.