JUDGMENT N. K. Sudhindrarao, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2016, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Haveri, in O.S.No.70/2011, wherein the suit for partition and separate possession came to be decreed and held that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession as under; The plainti ffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of share each in 1/3rd share of Veerappa Lamani i.e. 1/12th share each in item No.1 of schedule B i.e. land bearing RS.No.109/1 measuring 6 acres. The plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share each by metes and bounds, in land bearing RS.No.107/3, 107/7, 53/B, 92/1 of schedule B and C and item Nos.1, 2 and 5 of schedule D properties. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendants have come in appeal. 2. In order to avoid confusion and overlapping, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records. 4. This is an appeal by the defendant No.1- Hemanta. The respondents are as under; 1. BASAVARAJ S/O VEERAPPA ARKASALI @ LAMANI, 2. SHANTAVVA W/O UMESH ARKASALI @ LAMANI, 3. PARAVVA W/O RAMAPPA LAMANI, 4. RAVI S/O RAMAPPA LAMANI, 5. RAMAPPA S/O GULAMSINGH LAMANI, AGED ABUT: 35 YEARS, 6. RENAKAVVA SHIVAJI ARKASALI, AGED ABUT: 35 YEARS, 7. RAJU SHIVAJI ARKASALI, 8. JAGADISH SHIVAJI ARKASALI, 9. SANTOSH SHIVAJI ARKASALI, 10. DHEERSINGAPPA SHIVAPPA ARKASALI, 11. YALLAVVA W/O GANGAPPA ARKASALI, 12. SHANKRAPPA GANGAPPA ARKASALI, 13. GANESH GANGAPPA ARKASALI, AGED ABUT: 17 YEARS, OCC: NIL, (MINOR REPRESENTED BY MINOR GUARDIAN RESPONDENT NO.11), 14. POMAPPA SHIVAPPA ARKASALI, 15. MOUNESH SHIVAPPA ARKASALI, 16. LAKSHMAVVA W/O SHARANAPPA ARKASALI, 17. LALITAVVA W/O SHARANAPPA ARKASALI, 18. MANGALAVVA W/O SHANKRAPPA ARKASALI, 19. RAMU GULAMSINGH ARKASALI, 20. VASAPPA HARILALAPPA ARKASALI, 21. MOUNESH HARILALAPPA ARKASALI, 22. SMT.SHANTAVVA 23. UMESH HARILALAPPA ARKASALI, 24. MOUNESH HARILALAPPA ARKASALI, 25. MANJU PANDAPPA ARKASALI, 26. HAMMU HARILALAPPA ARKASALI, 27. PARLINGAPPA HARILALAPPA ARKASALI, 28. SMT.LAKSMAVVA W/O MOTILAL ARKASALI, 29. BUDDIVANTAPPA MOTILAL ARKASALI, 30. SMT.RUKMAVVA W/O CHANDRAPPA ARKASALI 31. TIPPANNA RAMAPPA ARKASALI, 32. SMT.LAKSHMAVVA W/O YALLAPPA ARKASALI, 5. The substance of the pleadings as could be seen from the facts, that earlier the plainti ffs have filed a civi l suit against defendant Nos.1 to 5 and as per the order of Court dated 25.01.2014, the other defendants were impleaded as necessary parties. SMT.RUKMAVVA W/O CHANDRAPPA ARKASALI 31. TIPPANNA RAMAPPA ARKASALI, 32. SMT.LAKSHMAVVA W/O YALLAPPA ARKASALI, 5. The substance of the pleadings as could be seen from the facts, that earlier the plainti ffs have filed a civi l suit against defendant Nos.1 to 5 and as per the order of Court dated 25.01.2014, the other defendants were impleaded as necessary parties. The Geneology of the family of the plainti ffs and defendants is as under; 6. Bhimappa is stated to be senior most ancestor, his wi fe is Rajawwa, Dakappa, Shivappa, Gulalasingh, Lakshmavva, Motilala, Krishnavva and Veerappa. Except, Lakshmavva all the children of Bhimappa reported dead. Deceased Dakappa had two sons Ramappa and Shivaji, both are dead. 7. Defendant No.3-Paravva is wife of Ramappa and defendant No.4-Ravi is son of said Ramappa and Paravva. Gulalasingh and his wife Kyashavva are also dead. Defendant No.5- Ramappa is their son. Similarly, Nemavva the wife of Veerappa, who is plaintiff No.1 and her son is Basavaraj-plaintiff No.2, Hemantadefendant No.1 and Smt.Shantavva is defendant No.2. 8. Thus, when the reckoning is made from Bhimappa and his wi fe Rajawwa, all the children consisting of five sons and two daughters, except Lakshmavva all are dead and there are no survivors. Thus, the living children i.e. the survivor is stated to be Lakshmavva is only living daughter of Bhimappa forming one branch. Dakappa who is one of the sons of Bhimappa is represented by Paravva, daughter-in-law of Dakappa. Thus, from the branch of Dakappa, defendant No.3-Paravva and Ravi-defendant No.4the son of Ramappa are representing. 9. From the branch of Gulalasingh, Ramappa-defendant No.5 is representing. Insofar, from the branch of Lakshmavva, she alone and from the branch of Veerappa, his wife Nemavva-plainti ff No.1 and defendant Nos.1 to 3 are stated to be successors. 10. For the sake of convenience, defendant Nos.3 and 4 represent Dakappa. 11. Defendant No.5 is representing Gulalasingh. 12. Plaintiff No.1, defendant Nos.1 and 2 represent Veerappa. 13. The reckoning is effected on the basis of representation of original children of Bhimappa and the branches of Dakappa, Gulalasingh, Lakshmavva and Veerappa. The rest are plainti ffs, who claim that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties consisting of ancestral and those which are earned through the income from the ancestral properties. 13. The reckoning is effected on the basis of representation of original children of Bhimappa and the branches of Dakappa, Gulalasingh, Lakshmavva and Veerappa. The rest are plainti ffs, who claim that the suit schedule properties are joint family properties consisting of ancestral and those which are earned through the income from the ancestral properties. The plainti ffs claim 2/3rd share in item Nos.2 to 6 of schedule B and 2/3rd share in schedule C and D excluding item No.5 in schedule B and share in item No.1 of schedule B. Their claim is that Veerappa, the husband of Nemavva has left behind plainti ff No.1, defendant Nos.1 and 2. The plainti ffs further claim that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the property as the full fledged members and entitled for share. The defendants entered appearance and suit is seriously contested by defendant No.1 who is stated to be the second son of Veerappa and Nemavva. The claim and contention of defendant No.1-Hemanta is in respect of two items of property. According to him, B schedule property consisting of 6 items of properties as under; 1. 109/1 6-00 4-00 Chandapur 2,00,000-00 2. 107/3 2-10 2-00 Chandapur 2,50,000-00 3. 107/7 2-10 1-99 Chandapur 2,50,000-00 4. 53/B 3-00 2-52 Neeralkatti 3,00,000-00 5. 92/1 10-26 10-55 Gikankatti 6,00,000-00 6. 92/2 1-00 0-99 Gikankatti 60,000-00 Total 20,00,000 14. And contend that item No.1 of B schedule property is the self-acquired property of this defendant. Item No.1 of B schedule property were earned out of hard work and sweat of defendant No.1 and it has nothing to do with the joint family. 15. Insofar as C schedule is concerned, it is a house constructed through earnings of this defendant and that site was separately granted to this defendant under Ashraya Scheme. 16. Item No.2 of D schedule property is a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KA-27/K15 7935, which is claimed to be the separate property of defendant No.1. 17. The main contest between the parties, thus is regarding schedule B and C. The defendant No.1, who is the contesting party claims the said two properties are his separate properties. The residential site being granted under Ashraya Scheme for his family and he constructed the house by taking loan and other 6 items of properties in B schedule were purchased under registered sale deeds. 18. The residential site being granted under Ashraya Scheme for his family and he constructed the house by taking loan and other 6 items of properties in B schedule were purchased under registered sale deeds. 18. The learned trial Judge was accommodated with the following oral evidence of witnesses and documentary evidence on behalf of plainti ffs; PW.1: Basavaraj Veerappa Lamani, PW.2: Nemappa Veerappa Lamani Documentary evidence at Ex.P1 to Ex.P28 on behal f of plainti ffs are as follows; Ex.P1 to 9: RTCs. Ex.P10 to 12: Tax paid receipts Ex.P13 : Copy of sale deed Ex.P14 to 18: Form No.8 Ex.P19 & 20 : RC Books Ex.P21 to 23: Copy of bank receipts Ex.P24 : Copy of death certificate Ex.P25 : Form No.23 Ex.P26 : Project Proposal Ex.P27 : Order sheet in PC.No.37/2008 Ex.P28 : Copy of FIR 19. The oral evidence of witnesses and documentary evidence on behal f of defendants, are as under; DW.1:Hemanth Veerappa Lamani Documentary evidence on behalf of defendants are as follows; Ex.D1: Copy of sale deed Ex.D2: Clearance certi ficate Ex.D3: No objection certificate Ex.D4: K.V.G Bank Account extract Ex.D5: Copy of notice. 20. On conclusion, the learned trial Judge passed the decree in favour of the plaintif fs as under; The plainti ffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of share each in 1/3rd share of Veerappa Lamani i.e. 1/12th share each in item No.1 of schedule B i.e. land bearing RS.No.109/1 measuring 6 acres. The plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share each by metes and bounds, in land bearing RS.No.107/3, 107/7, 53/B, 92/1 of schedule B and C and item Nos.1, 2 and 5 of schedule D properties. 21. Sri Sunil S.Desai, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 would submit that there existed no joint family properties with joint family capable of being partitioned. 22. It is the main contention of defendant No.1-Hemant that through his hard work and labour, he earned the suit property. Out of six items of property as mentioned in B schedule property, he purchased land in Sy.No.92 to the extent of 10 acres and 26 guntas from his previous owner for a cash consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- under the registered sale deed dated 20.02.2010. 23. He further submits that father of defendant died on 9.12.2007. Out of six items of property as mentioned in B schedule property, he purchased land in Sy.No.92 to the extent of 10 acres and 26 guntas from his previous owner for a cash consideration of Rs.4,50,000/- under the registered sale deed dated 20.02.2010. 23. He further submits that father of defendant died on 9.12.2007. However, long prior to the death of his father, defendant had gone out of the family and residing separately with his wife and family. This separation is effected during the life time of Veerappa but the particular year is not mentioned. He further submits that the plaintif fs have not produced prima-facie documents even to assume that schedule property belonged to joint family. 24. Sri S.G.Kadadakatti, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the defendant No.1 who is appellant herein had no separate source of income, he was not doing any separate business exclusively in his own name. He has never purchased the property separately in his name as stated above. More particularly, according to him the land in Sy.No.92 to the extent of 10 acres 26 guntas was purchased by defendant No.1 separately. But the said claim of defendant No.1 is totally false. The said item of property was purchased in the name of plainti ff for and on behal f of joint family and even the house which is granted to plainti ff is joint family property and cannot be an exclusive property of defendant. 25. The relationship among the parties is not disputed. As observed, we find that among the children of late Bhimappa and Rajawwa, out of seven children, three of them namely Shivappa, Motilala, Krishnavva were already dead and for the purpose of reckoning and representation, the parties left are four namely Dakappa, Gulalasingh, Lakshmavva and Veerappa. Among the entire lot of four for the present, we are concerned with the branch of Veerappa who is dead, his family branch consists of Nemavva-plaintiff No.1 is wife and Basavarajplainti ff No.2 is son. Hemanta-defendant No.1 and Shantavva-defendant No.2 are children (son and daughter) of Nemavva. 26. Thus, in the contextual understanding Veerappa s share in the main family would be that of 1/4th. It is in this connection the jointness of Hindu Family with properties is pleaded. Hemanta-defendant No.1 and Shantavva-defendant No.2 are children (son and daughter) of Nemavva. 26. Thus, in the contextual understanding Veerappa s share in the main family would be that of 1/4th. It is in this connection the jointness of Hindu Family with properties is pleaded. The property claimed to be belonged to joint family to the effect that they are either ancestral property or those which are purchased out of joint family earnings. 27. Defendant No.1 contends that he purchased item No.5 of suit schedule `B property. Admittedly, defendant No.1 is stated to be a physically handicapped person. It is no hard and fast rule that share of a member of joint Hindu family is determined on the basis of his working and earning capacity. 28. The shares are reckoned only in respect of those who are earning and nothing in respect of non-earning members. 29. Joint family is not created through agreement, it is created by status. The rights are confirmed with reference to the joint family as an unit. On the other hand, one member may be working hard, investing blood and sweat and another member may be vagabond and irresponsible and there may be also a member who is totally crippled or disabled. 30. In other words, the birth of a member confers right. There used to be a clog for a daughter to claim right at par with a son. However, the decision in the case of Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) AIR SC 3717 by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India, all issues are set at rest. A daughter stands in equal footing to that of a son. In other words, a member of the family, if he has got separate properties earned out of gains from the earnings or acquired through his par-excellence may be separate property, such as awards granted in recognition of skill, capacity, gallantry awards etc. 31. Whether a person works by offering equal shoulder responsibility or falls short will not be a reckoning factor in the joint family in fact that is the unique feature of Hindu Joint family. 32. It is not a question of belittling defendant No.1 regarding his earning capacity by virtue of his physical disability or being handicapped. 31. Whether a person works by offering equal shoulder responsibility or falls short will not be a reckoning factor in the joint family in fact that is the unique feature of Hindu Joint family. 32. It is not a question of belittling defendant No.1 regarding his earning capacity by virtue of his physical disability or being handicapped. He must have established separate income independent or any assistance from the family said property was acquired or in a separate loop line totally bifurcated from that of joint family. 33. In this connection it is necessary to mention that the suit is filed on 19.09.2011 as on the date of filing of the suit, the admitted age of the defendant No.1 is 35 years. Item No.5 of the `B schedule property was purchased during the year 2010 by which time defendant No.1 was 34 years old which presupposes that he was 34 years old when the said landed property was purchased. The defendant was not separately employed nor was earning income through his separate skill or capacity. On the other hand he was weekend by his handicapped status. In this connection separate source to purchase and earning capacity sufficient enough are not established. In other words on reading of sale deed it is dated 20.02.2010 cash consideration is Rs.4,50,000/- purchaser is Hemant, S/o Veerappa Arkasali and seller Smt.Kumudini, D/o Ramachandra Rathod and agricultural land sold to an extent of 10 acres 26 guntas in Sy.No.92 of Jekkanakatti Village. 34. The contention of the defendant No.1 is that earlier to the said sale deed he was already in possession of the land as a lessee. After enforcement of the Land Reforms Act there is no question of letting land on lease or tenancy. 35. The said contention cannot be accepted to keep ownership separately from the joint family. Further insofar as record of rights is concerned the name of Ramappa, S/o Dakappa stood out for 6 acres of land in Sy.No.109/1 (Ex.P-1) of Chandapura which is item No.1. Insofar as land in Sy.No.107/3 (Ex.P-2) to the extent of 2 acres 10 guntas of Chandapura stands in the name of Nemavva who is plaintif f No.1 or the mother of defendant No.1. Ex.P-4 - Sy.No.107/7 is in the name of Basavaraj, S/o Veerappa- plaintiff No.2, to the extent of 2 acres 10 guntas. Insofar as land in Sy.No.107/3 (Ex.P-2) to the extent of 2 acres 10 guntas of Chandapura stands in the name of Nemavva who is plaintif f No.1 or the mother of defendant No.1. Ex.P-4 - Sy.No.107/7 is in the name of Basavaraj, S/o Veerappa- plaintiff No.2, to the extent of 2 acres 10 guntas. Insofar as Exhibit P-5 is RTC of the land in Sy.No.53 to the extent of 3 acres in the name of Basavaraj. Insofar as Sy.No.92/1 (Ex.P25 6) of Jekkanakatti is concerned to the extent of 10 acres 26 guntas it is in the name of Hemanth which is discussed above is purchased in his name. In respect of Ex.P-7 which is RTC relating to Sy.No.92/2 of Jekkankatti to the extent of 1 acre it is in the name of Billa Nayaka. Insofar as Ex.P-8 assessment extract in the name of Basavaraj, Ex.P-9 assessment extract in the name of Hemant. This goes to show that one residential property is in the name of Basavaraj, plainti ff No.2 and another in the name of defendant No.1. 36. The concept of Joint Hindu Family reveals that there can be joint family without property and those which are with properties. Similarly in the joint family it may consist of joint properties of the family and separate properties of the members and also separate properties which are put into hotchpot of joint family. However presumption is regarding jointness of the family. 37. Acquisition of the property i f made through the efforts of members or the nucleus of the family, the family get branded as joint family as the property wherein members will have undivided share till partition is ef fected of which they get separate share in consideration of common interest. 38. In the present case the stream is in favour of joint family. It is the contention of defendant No.1 that two items of property belonged to him and they were acquired without any kind of nexus or support from the joint family. Pleadings, oral evidence supported by documentary evidence reveal crystal clear that al l the schedule items of properties are joint family. However insofar as item `C schedule property consisting of house property is the one which is allotted to defendant No.1 under Ashraya Scheme. 39. Pleadings, oral evidence supported by documentary evidence reveal crystal clear that al l the schedule items of properties are joint family. However insofar as item `C schedule property consisting of house property is the one which is allotted to defendant No.1 under Ashraya Scheme. 39. In this connection it is necessary to distinguish allotment of land under Ashraya Scheme to that of allotment or grant of agricultural land normally and usually the grant of agricultural land is made on the basis of clarification and requirement to a person for himsel f or his family. 40. However a site granted under Ashraya Scheme cannot be equated to that of a joint family. In the facts and circumstances of the case we find Ex.P-8 assessment extract is standing in the name of plainti ff No.2 Basavaraj, Exhibit P-9 is in favour of defendant No.1-Hemant. 41. Thus, it clears doubt and confirms that each of the properties standing in the name of plainti ff No.2 and defendant No.1 are respectively their separate property. In fact learned counsel Sri.Sunil Desai would submit that the said property mentioned in Ex.P-8 and 9 are not schedule property and schedule properties are listed in `B schedule of the suit schedule. 42. Thus, we find that the defendantappellant has failed to establish that the suit schedule properties item Nos.2 to 5 of schedule `B properties are his separate properties. We are of the firm finding that except house property mentioned in `C schedule property, the other properties belonged to joint family wherein plainti ff and defendants are entitled for share. However it is necessary to clarify regarding share the decree drawn by the trial court is as under: The plainti ffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of share each in 1/3rd share of Veerappa Lamani i.e. 1/12th share each in item No.1 of schedule B i.e. land bearing RS.No.109/1 measuring 6 acres. The plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share each by metes and bounds, in land bearing RS.No.107/3, 107/7, 53/B, 92/1 of schedule B and C and item Nos.1, 2 and 5 of schedule D properties. The plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of 1/4th share each by metes and bounds, in land bearing RS.No.107/3, 107/7, 53/B, 92/1 of schedule B and C and item Nos.1, 2 and 5 of schedule D properties. The defendants No.3 and 4 are entitled for equal share in 1/3rd share of Ramappa son of Dakappa Lamani i.e., to the extent of 2 acres in land bearing RS.No.109/1 i.e. , 1/6th share each and defendant No.5 is entitled for 1/3rd share in land bearing RS.No.109/1 of his father Gulalsingh to the extent of 2 acres. The claim of the plaintif fs for partition and separate possession in land bearing RS.No.92/2, items No.3 and 4 of schedule `D is hereby dismissed. The partition of agricultural lands shall be ef fected as per Sec.54 of CPC. 43. It is necessary to mention that the original joint family was headed by Bhimappa consisting seven children out of them three were already dead and issueless and four children as Dakappa, Gulalalsingh, Lakshmavva and Veerappa. Regard being had to the fact the dead ones are Shivappa, Motilala and Krishnavva. Thus among the share presumption that the total schedule property except house property forming 1/4th share of Veerappa or on the premise that schedule property forms 1/4th share belonging to Veerappa, the partition has to be effected. 44. Appeal is allowed in part. Appeal in respect of item other than `C schedule properties they stand dismissed. However, said residential properties are held to be separate properties of the respective holders.