JUDGMENT : H.P.SANDESH, J. 1. This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding. The factual matrix of case of plaintiff before the Trial Court that one Honnappa is the original propositus of the family. He had four sons Lingappa, Subbarayappa, Chikkanna and Anjinappa. The parties to the suit belongs to the branch of Sri.Lingappa and details are given with regard to the suit filed among the children of only the first son Lingappa. It is their case that original propositus Honnappa died intestate and after his death, the four sons got divided the property in Sy.No.125/1 of Rajaghatta village. In the said partition, 31 guntas of land was allotted to Sri.Lingappa, 23 guntas of land to Subbarayappa, 30 guntas of land to Chikkanna and 28 guntas of land to Anjinappa. There was a partition among themselves and the same was re-numbered as 125/1A, 125/1B, 125/1C and 125/1D respectively. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that R.L.Puttana was managing the joint family properties when Lingappa fell sick and became bed ridden at an early age and he was the Kartha of the family and R.L.Puttanna was cultivating the entire extent of 2 acres 22 guntas of land. The entire property was in possession and cultivation of joint family of Sri.Lingappa. After the death of Lingappa, R.L.Puttanna continued to manage the properties of the joint family. There was no any partition and R.L.Puttanna also became the Chairman of the village panchayat of Rajaghatta village. He had earned reputation and status. The plaintiff No.1 and his brothers used to physically cultivate the landed properties of the joint family and Puttanna used to manage the accounts and collect the money on behalf of the joint family and also the joint family was running a Flour Mill and Sarvamangala wife of Puttanna used to manage the Flour Mill business and used to collect the income from Flour Mill business. The plaint ’B’ schedule property originally belongs to one Channappa and his son Sri.Chikkananjappa residents of Dasagondanahalli village. They sold the plaint ‘B’ schedule property to R.L.Puttanna under a registered sale deed in the year 1960 and out of the income of the ‘A’ schedule properties, Puttanna purchased the ‘B’ schedule property in the year 1960. The plaint ’B’ schedule property originally belongs to one Channappa and his son Sri.Chikkananjappa residents of Dasagondanahalli village. They sold the plaint ‘B’ schedule property to R.L.Puttanna under a registered sale deed in the year 1960 and out of the income of the ‘A’ schedule properties, Puttanna purchased the ‘B’ schedule property in the year 1960. The sale deed was executed in the name of Puttanna as he was the Kartha of the joint family. The joint family had ancestral property measuring 1 acre 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.116/4 of Rajaghatta village and Puttanna sold the said land on behalf of the joint family in favour of Chikkananjappa on 03.05.1960. The plaint ‘B’ schedule property was mortgaged in favour of Haalu Uthpadakara Sangh, Rajaghatta on several occasions by the plaintiff No.1, Sri.R.L.Shivarudraiah and Sri.R.L.Puttanna. The plaint ‘B’ schedule property was never treated as self-acquired property of Sri.R.L.Puttanna. The plaintiff No.1 had raised loan from the Society by mortgaging the title deeds of the plaint ‘B’ schedule property on behalf of the joint family. There was no partition between the members of the joint family and Puttanna died in the year 1995. Joint family properties are being taken care of by the defendants Nos.1 and 2 who are the sons of Sri.Puttanna. The plaintiffs have a right to share in the suit schedule properties. Inspite of demand was made, they have not partitioned the property and hence filed the suit. The defendants have appeared and filed written statement contending that Item No.1 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property is a joint family property. These defendants have no objection to effect partition in respect of the Item No.1 of ‘A’ schedule properties. The defendants have out-rightly denied all other pleadings made in the plaint that there was an existence of joint family and denied all the averments and also specifically pleaded that Sarvamangala purchased the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties on 11.04.1984. As on the date, alleged joint family was not in existence. By then, plaintiff No.1 and his brothers were living separately from one another. These defendants are basically agriculturists. They are also doing milk vending business. They were also having their own earning and also Sarvamangala running a Flour Mill in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property purchased by her. As on the date, alleged joint family was not in existence. By then, plaintiff No.1 and his brothers were living separately from one another. These defendants are basically agriculturists. They are also doing milk vending business. They were also having their own earning and also Sarvamangala running a Flour Mill in the plaint ‘A’ schedule property purchased by her. The said properties were purchased by her own income but not from the income of the joint family and there was no any joint family is in existence. Apart from that ‘B’ schedule property is the self-acquired property of Sri. R.L.Puttanna and he had purchased the same from one Channappa in the year 1961. The family necessitates the same and hence Puttanna has sold the ‘B’ schedule property in the year 1991. All these factors clearly shows that there was no existence of joint family. The defendant No.3 who also appears and filed separate written statement contending that the averments made in the plaint does not disclose anything about the existence of joint family and on account of death of defendant No.3, defendant No.3(a) to 3(c) have also filed the consent written statement. But, admitted all the facts of the case of plaintiffs. The defendant Nos.2, 5 and 6 have also filed memo adopting the written statement of defendant No.1 denying the very case of the plaintiff. 4. It is the specific case that there was a oral partition between the sons of Sri.Lingappa in respect of the said three properties which were allotted to Sri.Lingappa in the said registered partition deed. Item No.1 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule property was allotted to Puttanna in the said partition. The said house property bearing Kaneshumari No.82 was allotted to the plaintiff No.1. The site property bearing Kaneshumari No.68 was allotted to Shivarudraiah. The other properties have been purchased by Puttanna are self-acquired properties. The defendant No.4 took the specific defence that he had purchased the property from Puttanna and the same is the self acquired property of Puttanna who had purchased the same in the year 1960 and his sale deed is in respect of ‘B’ schedule property dated 11.04.1991. 5. The Trial Court also considering the pleadings of the plaintiffs and defendants, framed the issues and also additional issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. 5. The Trial Court also considering the pleadings of the plaintiffs and defendants, framed the issues and also additional issues and allowed the parties to lead evidence. Having considered the evidence available on record, comes to the conclusion that already there was a partition and also noticed that the specific defence of the defendant Nos.2, 5 and 6 is very clear that there was already a partition and in the partition Item No.1 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties were allotted to Sri.Puttana in the said partition and other house properties were allotted to the share of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and most properties were not included at the time of filing of the suit. Subsequently, those two properties were also allotted and those properties were also identified as the joint family properties which came to Lingappa in the earlier partition of the year 1957. There is no any explanation on the part of the plaintiffs with regard to the allotment of those two house properties and Kaneshumari property in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2. 6. It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the other properties are also purchased by Puttanna who is the Kartha of the family, but the fact is that the property which was sold in favour of defendant No.4 was purchased by the Puttanna in the year 1960 itself. Apart from that it is emerged during the course of evidence that Sarvamangala was running a Flour Mill and the properties are also purchased in the name of Sarvamangala. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence that the property which was allotted in favour of Puttanna in the oral partition was also sold in the year 1984 itself and suit is filed in the year 2007 and taken note of that plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and comes to a conclusion that no material is placed with regard to the existence of joint family. Apart from that it is emerged during the course of evidence that all of them are residing separately and also purchased the other properties in their individual family. Apart from that it is emerged during the course of evidence that all of them are residing separately and also purchased the other properties in their individual family. The defendants Nos.1 and 2 have been able to prove that Item Nos.1 to 4 of the plaint ‘A’ schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of Sarvamangala and also able to prove that ‘B’ schedule property is also the self-acquired property of R.L.Puttanna and the same was purchased in the year 1960 and inturn it was sold in the year 1991 itself in favour of defendant No.4. Hence, answered the issues that no existence of joint family and hence question of granting the relief of partition doesn't arise and dismissed the suit. 7. Being aggrieved by the same, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.10019/2016. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo, formulated the point whether the judgment and decree of the Court opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case and having re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence from paragraph No.23, particularly in paragraph No.24 that Sarvamangala was managing a Flour Mill in Rajaghatta village, but plaintiffs contend that it was setup by R.L.Puttappa by using the joint family funds. But, in order to substantiate the same, nothing was placed before the Court. The Trial Court also taken note of case of 4 th defendant that he had purchased the property in the year 1991 and said property was purchased by R.L.Puttanna in the year 1960 itself as his self acquired property and re-assessed both oral and documentary evidence particularly in paragraph Nos.30, 31 and 32 and comes to the conclusion that on appreciation of all the oral and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiffs as well as defendants, it is seen that plaintiffs claim the right only with ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties. But, they have not questioned or raised any finger towards several other independent transactions made by the parties including the plaintiffs and spouse of P.W.1-Shankaraiah. 8. The case of plaintiffs that other acquisitions and alienations will not affect the joint family and only ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties would become joint family properties has no reason or logic. In paragraph No.34 made an observation particularly with regard to the property which was purchased by Sarvamangala. 8. The case of plaintiffs that other acquisitions and alienations will not affect the joint family and only ‘A’ and ‘B’ schedule properties would become joint family properties has no reason or logic. In paragraph No.34 made an observation particularly with regard to the property which was purchased by Sarvamangala. Ex.D.35 and Ex.D.36- registered sale deed of the year 1984 and 1971 and Puttanna also purchased the property in the year 1960 as per Ex.P.1 and also taken note of property stands in the name of the plaintiffs that is Ex.P.39 and 40 are in respect of the joint family properties of the Lingappa who is the father of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and also the defendant R.L.Puttappa under a definite conclusion arrived by the First Appellate Court that defendant No.4 had purchased the property from Puttanna and also made an observation that the plaintiffs have made a false claim and it is a fit case to invoke Section 340 of Cr.P.C and dismissed the appeal. 9. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, present second appeal is filed before this Court. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the appellants in this case is that no dispute that originally property bearing No.125 belongs to the family and among the division of the sons of Honnappa, those properties are given number as 125/1A to 125/1D. The counsel also would vehemently contend that there is an admission on the part of defendant No.1 with regard to the 125/1A and no objection to allot the share. The Trial Court inspite of that admission committed an error. The counsel also vehemently contend that the property was purchased in the name of wife of Puttanna who is also the member of the family and Sarvamangala was not having any independent source of income. Hence this Court has to admit and frame substantive question of law. 10. The respective counsel appearing for the respondents brought to notice of this Court that the plaintiffs have filed a suit suppressing the material facts before the Court and there was a earlier partition among the family members and also suppressed the fact that house property which is standing in the name of wife of plaintiff No.1 that is appellant No.1 and also the plaintiff No.2-R.S.Shivakumar who is the son of R.S.Shivarudraiah. Family property site Ex.D.40 stands in their name and there is no any explanation. Family property site Ex.D.40 stands in their name and there is no any explanation. If those properties are standing in their name, why they have excluded those properties while filing the suit, no explanation. On the other hand, it is the contention that Item No.1 was allotted in favour of Puttanna and wife of Puttanna also purchased other items of the property 125/1A to 125/1D. No dispute to that effect and the same is purchased out of their self earned money and she was running a Flour Mill and the same is also emerged during the course of evidence and having separate income. Apart from that even counsel appearing for the defendant No.4 brought to notice of this Court that document Ex.D.30 and Ex.D.31 clearly discloses that a surety was offered in respect of the very same property which he had purchased in the year 1991 itself and having the knowledge about all these transactions by suppressing the said fact, filed the suit. All these factors were appreciated by Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court also having noticed The ingenious method adopted by the plaintiffs while seeking the relief of partition, contending that there was an existence of joint family and rightly made an observation to invoke Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Hence, no ground is made out. 11. Having heard the counsel appearing for the appellants and also the counsel appearing for the respondents, it is not in dispute that originally property belongs to the Honnappa. It is not in dispute that there was a partition in the year 1957 among the children of Honnappa i.e., Lingappa, Subbarayappa, Chikkanna and Anjinappa. In the said partition, three items of the properties were allotted in favour of Lingappa i.e., 125/1A as well as the property at Ex.D.39 and Ex.D.40 and not in dispute that property at Ex.D.39 stands in the name of the appellant No.1-Girijamma, who is the wife of Shankaraiah and also the property Ex.D.40 stands in the name of Nanjamma, who is the wife of Shivarudraiah, who is the mother of plaintiff No.2. There is an observation that no explanation that when these two properties are allotted in favour of the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and other property allotted in favour of Puttanna in the said partition, the said Puttanna dealt with the same after the property was allotted in his favour and so also the other items of the property 125/1B, 125/1C and 125/1D are purchased in the name of Sarvamangala who is none other than the wife of Puttanna and material also discloses that Puttanna in the year 1960 itself had purchased the ‘B’ schedule property and inturn he sold the property in the year 1991 in favour of defendant No. 4. All these factors were within the knowledge of the plaintiffs, but the plaintiffs have pleaded the existence of joint family and also in an ingenious method they have excluded the property which were allotted in their family as Ex.D.39 and Ex.D.40 were not included. Subsequently, the same have been included after the contention of the defendants. All these factors were taken note of by the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court and rightly comes to the conclusion that there was no any existence of joint family and also taken note of the separate earning of wife of Puttanna i.e., Sarvamangala who was running Flour Mill and also taken note of other materials. When such being the case, when there is no any perversity in finding of the Trial Court as well as First Appellate Court and both the Courts dealt with both oral and documentary evidence placed on record elaborately coming to such a conclusion and even First Appellate Court in detail discussed in paragraph Nos.34 and 35 considering all these materials that there was no any existence of joint family. Even in paragraph No.40 comes to the conclusion that it is a case for invoking Section 340 of Cr.P.C. Having considered the material on record, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law. 12. However, an observation made in paragraph No.40 of the First Appellate Court judgment that a false claim have to be appropriately dealt with and Section 340 of Cr.P.C has to be invoked and that observation has to be expunged. 12. However, an observation made in paragraph No.40 of the First Appellate Court judgment that a false claim have to be appropriately dealt with and Section 340 of Cr.P.C has to be invoked and that observation has to be expunged. No doubt, there was a claim made by the plaintiffs in contending that there was no partition, but material clearly discloses that already there was a partition and family properties are already allotted even in favour of them also and the said properties are standing in their name in terms of Ex.D.39 and Ex.D.40 and false claim cannot be a ground to invoke Section 340 of Cr.P.C. With this observation of expunging of paragraph No.40 of Appellate Court order invoking of Section 340 of Cr.P.C, I do not find any ground to admit and frame substantive question of law. 13. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER i) Second Appeal is dismissed. ii) The observation made in paragraph No.40 of Appellate Court judgment is expunged in respect of taking of action under Section 340 of Cr.P.C.