JUDGMENT : J.M.KHAZI, J. In this Regular First Appeal, defendant Nos.1 to 5 have challenged the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court granting relief of partition and separate possession of 1/5 th share to the plaintiff in suit schedule properties. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial Court. 3. Plaintiff filed the suit seeking partition and separate possession of 1/5 th share in suit schedule properties consisting of lands in Sy.Nos.261/1 measuring 16 acres 37 guntas and Sy.No.261/2 measuring 19 acres 18 guntas and 4 residential houses of Yadrami Village. 4. It is the case of the plaintiff that he and defendants constitute a Hindu joint family and suit schedule properties are their ancestral and joint family properties. Parties to the suit are residing separately due to the differences of opinion between the women folk. About 17 years back he has purchased land in Sy.No.425 measuring 12 acres as his self acquired property. Recently, he came to know that defendants have concocted a bogus partition deed dated 29.05.2017 among themselves and trying to mutate their names on the basis of illegal partition and hence the suit. 5. Defendants admit the blood relationship between the parties i.e, plaintiff, defendant No.1, the husband of defendant No.2 and defendant Nos.5 and 2 are the children of Siddappa. They also admit that the suit properties were their ancestral and joint family properties. In addition, Sy.No.425 measuring 12 acres and Sy.No.156, measuring 17 acres 36 guntas purchased in the name of defendant Nos.5 and 6 were also ancestral and joint family properties. A partition has taken place between them wherein Sy.No.425 is allotted to the share of plaintiff, Sy.No.261 is divided between defendant No.1 and Hanumanthraya and Sy.No.156 is allotted to the share of defendant Nos.5 and 6. Out of the four residential houses, plaintiff, defendant No.1 and the wife and children of Hanumanthraya are residing in one house each. They have disputed that Sy.No.425 is the self acquired property of plaintiff and sought for dismissal of the suit. 6. Though initially, defendant Nos.5 and 6 were not arraigned as parties, later they are impleaded. 7. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed necessary issues. 8. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and two witnesses as PWs-2 and 3. He got marked Exs.P1 to 20. 9. 6. Though initially, defendant Nos.5 and 6 were not arraigned as parties, later they are impleaded. 7. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed necessary issues. 8. Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and two witnesses as PWs-2 and 3. He got marked Exs.P1 to 20. 9. On the other hand, defendant Nos.1 and 5 are examined as DWs-1 and 2. Defendants have got examined two witnesses as DWs-3 and 4. They have relied upon Exs.D1 to 25. 10. The trial Court accepted the case of the plaintiff and granted 1/5 th share in the suit properties. 11. Aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1 to 5 have filed this appeal, contending that the trial Court has not even looked into the testimony of PWs-1 to 3 and as such failed to appreciate the admissions given by them. Their evidence clearly prove that partition has taken place about 30 years back and since then plaintiff is enjoying land in Sy.No.425, measuring 12 acres fallen to his share. The said land was acquired through the joint family nucleus, but the same was registered in the name of plaintiff. Plaintiff never had any separate income of his own. Sy.No.261, which is item No.1 of suit schedule property is divided between the other two brothers. The evidence also proved that the sons of Siddappa Mullolli are allotted one house each and they are enjoying the same separately. Land in Sy.No.156, measuring 17 acres 36 guntas is also acquired through the joint family nucleus, but in the name of defendant Nos.5 and 6 and it was allotted to their share. As per the partition, the names of respective parties were mutated in the revenue records. Suppressing these facts plaintiff has come up with an unrighteous suit without including Sy.Nos.425 and 156. The evidence led by the parties clearly established the defence taken by the defendants. Without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit. Its findings are contrary to the evidence and as such perverse and hence the appeal. 12. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6 have relied upon the decision in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors (Vineeta Sharma) , (2020) 9 SCC 1 13. Its findings are contrary to the evidence and as such perverse and hence the appeal. 12. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6 have relied upon the decision in Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma and Ors (Vineeta Sharma) , (2020) 9 SCC 1 13. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the plaintiff supported the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 14. Heard arguments of both sides and perused the record. 15. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that suit schedule properties were the ancestral and joint family properties of the parties. According to the defendants, in addition to the suit properties, there are two more properties acquired with the aid of joint family funds i.e., Sy.No.425, measuring 12 acres purchased in the name of plaintiff and Sy.No.156 measuring 17 acres 36 guntas purchased in the name of defendant Nos.5 and 6 and in the partition they have been allotted to the name of plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 and 6 respectively. Defendant more particularly defendant Nos.5 and 6 does not dispute the fact that Sy.No.156 was acquired through the joint family nucleus. However, plaintiff dispute that Sy.No.425 was purchased with the joint family funds. On the other hand, he claims to be the absolute owner of this said property and that he has acquired through the money earned by him, independent of the income of joint family properties. Despite defendants taking the specific defence that Sy.Nos.425 and 156 are also joint family properties, he has not chosen to include the same to the suit. There was no impediment for the plaintiff to include them to the suit schedule properties and establish that Sy.No.425 is his self acquired property. Therefore, since all the properties belonging to the joint family are not included the suit for partial partition is not maintainable. 16. Since the plaintiff claim that Sy.No.425 is acquired by him as his self acquisition, it is necessary to examine whether he has led sufficient evidence to prove the said fact. At the out set, it is relevant to note that in the plaint, plaintiff has given his age as 65 years. The suit is filed in the year 2017, which gives his year of birth as 1952. At the out set, it is relevant to note that in the plaint, plaintiff has given his age as 65 years. The suit is filed in the year 2017, which gives his year of birth as 1952. It has come in the evidence that about, 20 years prior to the filing of the suit, plaintiff was driven out of the joint family and since then he stayed separately and earned his livelihood. If the plaintiff is aged 65 years when the suit was filed, when he was driven out of the joint family, he was aged about 45 years. In the plaint, plaintiff has pleaded that he purchased Sy.No.425 about 17 years prior to the filing of suit. In other words according to the plaintiff, he purchased Sy.No.425 after about three years of leaving the joint family i.e, he was aged about 48 years when he purchased the said property. It has come in the evidence that defendant is having five sons and all of them are able- bodied. Therefore, if really plaintiff has purchased Sy.No.425, about 17 years back i.e., 3 years after leaving the joint family, the possibility of acquiring the same through his self acquisition with the help of his sons cannot be ruled out. 17. Now it is necessary to examine whether the claim made by the plaintiff regarding acquisition of Sy.No.425 as his self acquired property is supported by the documents. Plaintiff has not chosen to produce the original sale deed through which he purchased Sy.No.425. Therefore, defendants have produced the copy of the said sale deed at Ex.D12. The fact that land in Sy.No.425 was acquired as per the sale deed at Ex.D12 is not in dispute. According to this document, plaintiff is the purchaser. This document is registered on 12.06.1968 i.e, it was purchased about 49 years prior to the filing of the suit and not 17 years back as claimed by the plaintiff. If the age of the plaintiff was 65 years when the suit was filed, then when land in Sy.No.425 was purchased on 12.06.1968, plaintiff was aged around 16 years. In the sale deed, age of plaintiff is given as 21 years. If the age of the plaintiff was 65 years when the suit was filed, then when land in Sy.No.425 was purchased on 12.06.1968, plaintiff was aged around 16 years. In the sale deed, age of plaintiff is given as 21 years. Even where the age of the plaintiff is accepted as 21 years when the land in Sy.No.425 was purchased, he was in the joint family and at the said age of 21 years, it cannot be expected that he could have his separate income, out of which he purchased the said property. The plaintiff has not led any evidence to show that when living in the joint family, he had any independent income, especially when during the course of cross-examination of the witnesses, it is elicited that except the income from the suit properties, the family had no other income, more particularly the plaintiff. Such being the case at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be accepted that land in Sy.No.425 is the self acquired property of the plaintiff and he had independent income to acquire the same. It appears concealing the true facts, cleverly in the plaint the plaintiff has pleaded that he acquired land in Sy.No.425 about 17 years prior to the filing of the suit. 18. As per written statement filed by defendant No.5, land in Sy.No.156, measuring 17 acres 36 guntas of Maganagera was also purchased out of the joint family funds through registered sale dated 17.06.1982 and nominally the sale deed was executed in the name of defendant Nos.5 and 6. When defendant Nos.5 and 6, who are the beneficiaries of land acquired through the said sale themselves are not claiming any ownership over the said property as a self acquisition and in the light of the fact that they are married daughters, it is proved that the said property was also acquired with the joint family funds. It appears the intention of the father of plaintiff was that the properties acquired through these two sale deeds, would to be allotted to the share of plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 and 6 so that the other children could share the remaining properties, including the residential houses. 19. Thus, the evidence placed on record prove that both Sy.Nos.425 and 156 were acquired with the joint family funds and as such they are joint family properties. 19. Thus, the evidence placed on record prove that both Sy.Nos.425 and 156 were acquired with the joint family funds and as such they are joint family properties. Despite defendants taking such contention, plaintiff has not chosen to include these two properties to the suit and therefore a suit for partial partition is not maintainable. It has come in the evidence of DW-2 (Defendant No.5) that defendant No.2 Gowramma is her daughter. She is no other than the wife of Hanumantaraya - the brother of plaintiff. In other words, defendant No.5 has given her daughter in marriage to her own younger brother. It has also come in her evidence that she and defendant No.6 are married to real brothers and one of the daughter of defendant No.6 is given in marriage to the son of plaintiff and her other daughter is married to the son of defendant No.1. Having regard to the delicate relationship between plaintiff and defendant Nos.5 and 6, not only as siblings, but also on account of their relationship through the marriage of their children, it appears plaintiff is not in favour of including Sy.No.156 and seek partition. Of course he is having personal interest in Sy.No.425 by claiming it to be his self acquisition. He could have included both these properties or at least Sy.No.425 and prove that it is his self acquired property. Of course for the reasons enumerated above, plaintiff has failed to prove that Sy.No.425 is his self acquired property. 20. Now the next question that is required to be answered is whether already a partition has taken place in the family of plaintiff and defendants and in the said partition land in Sy.No.425 is allotted to the share of plaintiff and he and other defendants are enjoying their respective shares separately. As already noted during the course of his cross- examination, plaintiff has admitted that about 20 years prior to the filing of the suit, he was driven out of the house when he quarreled with his father and since then he is cultivating and enjoying land in Sy.No.425 to the exclusion of other members of the family and no one demanded any income or yield of this land. He has also admitted that land in Sy.No.261 is divided between defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they are enjoying the same separately since 20 years. He has also admitted that land in Sy.No.261 is divided between defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they are enjoying the same separately since 20 years. The plaintiff has also admitted that the three houses belonging to the joint family are being enjoyed by plaintiff, defendant Nos.1 and 2 separately. The Khatha of these properties are also transferred to the name of respective parties. 21. The elaborate evidence led by both parties clearly establish the fact that except the suit properties, the joint family was not having any other income. When land in Sy.No.425 was purchased, plaintiff was a minor or at the most age around 21 years as noted in the sale deed and as such he never had any income of his own. In fact, he has not led any evidence to prove that apart from the joint family nucleus, he was having any other income of his own to purchase the said property as long back as in 1958. 22. Similarly, the evidence led by the parties also established the fact that Sy.No.156 measuring 17 acres 36 was purchased in the name of defendant Nos.5 and 6 out of the joint family nucleus and the said property is allotted to their share. Plaintiff is allotted the land in Sy.No.425 and since from 20 years, he is enjoying the same separately. The defendant No.1 and the other son Hanumantharaya were allotted land in Sy.No.261 and accordingly they are enjoying the same. Out of the four residential houses, three are allotted to the share of plaintiff, defendant No.1 and Hanumantharaya and they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Of course the partition between the parties is oral and it is acted upon. It appears in order to make wrongful gain, plaintiff has filed the suit without including all the properties. Of course, he has failed to prove the specific case pleaded by him. 23. So far as partition between defendant Nos.2 to 4 are concerned, as per Ex.P20, they have divided the property fallen to the share of Hanumantharaya among themselves. Neither plaintiff, nor other defendants have anything to do with the said property, which was allotted to the share of Hanumantharaya. Therefore, there was no necessity for them to include the plaint if other defendants to the said partition. Plaintiff cannot term the said partition as concocted document. Of course, it is not binding on the plaintiff. Neither plaintiff, nor other defendants have anything to do with the said property, which was allotted to the share of Hanumantharaya. Therefore, there was no necessity for them to include the plaint if other defendants to the said partition. Plaintiff cannot term the said partition as concocted document. Of course, it is not binding on the plaintiff. At the same time, he has nothing to do with the arrangement between defendant Nos.2 to 4 with regard to the property fallen to the share of late Hanumantharaya. Therefore, the said partition entered into between defendant Nos.2 to 4 and that they are trying to get their names mutated give rise to a cause of action for the plaintiff to file this suit is not correct. In fact, in the plaint, there are no pleadings to the effect that he demanded partition. 24. On re-appreciation of the entire evidence placed on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the trial Court without proper application of mind and appreciation of the evidence led by the parties, solely on the basis of the fact that sale deed of Sy.No.425 is standing in the name of plaintiff has held that the it is the self acquired property of plaintiff and that no share is allotted to the plaintiff out of the joint family properties. Therefore, the conclusions arrived at and the findings given by the trial Court are perverse. It calls for interference by this Court. 25. Since already partition has taken place between the parties the decision in Vineeta Sharma cannot be pressed into service. 26. In the result the appeal deserves to be allowed and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Appeal filed by the appellants/defendant Nos.1 to 5 under Section 96 r/w Order XLI Rule 1 of CPC is allowed. (ii) The impugned judgment and degree dated 31.07.2023 in O.S.No.66/2017 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jewargi is hereby set aside. (iii) Consequently, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with cost. (iv) The Registry is directed to send back the trial records along with copy of this judgment forthwith. In view of disposal of the appeal, pending application/s, if any, stands disposed off, as no separate order is required.