JUDGMENT : (S.G. PANDIT, J.) Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 in O.S.No.1043/1991 on the file of the XVIII Additional City Civil Judge at Bengaluru are before this Court in this first appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2006 insofar as dismissing the suit in respect of items No.2, 6, 9, 9(a) and 9(b) of suit ‘D’ schedule properties and consequently praying to decree the suit as prayed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, Originally, the first plaintiff, sister of defendants No.1 to 3 filed a suit for partition of suit schedule A to D properties. Defendant No.1 filed his written statement and defendants No.2 and 3 filed their written statement separately. Subsequently, defendants No.2 and 3, the other sisters of defendant No.1 transposed themselves as plaintiffs No.2 and 3. 3. The plaint averments would indicate that plaintiffs and defendants are the children of Late G.Hanumanthappa and Late Smt.G.Rangamma. The father and mother of the plaintiffs and defendant died intestate. It is averred in the plaint that the suit schedule properties are in joint possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and defendant. Further, it is stated that the properties described in the suit schedule are joint family properties of the plaintiffs and defendant. The plaintiffs and defendants have succeeded to the properties left behind by their father Hanumanthappa and mother Rangamma. Further, the plaint averments would state that though item Nos. 9(a) and 9(b) of the suit schedule ‘D’ properties nominally stand in the name of the first defendant Sri.Gurunath, the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 have 1/4 th share each, since the properties are purchased out of the income of the joint family, as defendant No.1 had no source of income much less independent source of income. Defendant No.1 in his written statement denied the allegations and contended that self-earned properties of defendant No.1 are also included in the partition to which the plaintiffs are not entitled. It is also averred in the written statement of defendant No.1 that plaintiff No.1 has no share in the suit schedule properties and she has no right to claim partition and separate possession of her alleged 1/4 th share in the schedule properties particularly schedule ‘D’ properties. 4. Plaintiff No.1 got examined herself as P.W.1, plaintiff No.3 examined herself as P.W.2 apart from marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P52. 4. Plaintiff No.1 got examined herself as P.W.1, plaintiff No.3 examined herself as P.W.2 apart from marking Ex.P1 to Ex.P52. Whereas, on behalf of defendant, D.W.1 to D.W.5 were examined and Ex.D1 to Ex.D9 were marked. 5. The trial Court after appreciation of material on record, decreed the suit partly in the following manner: (a) There shall be a partition and separate possession of plaintiff’s share in respect of the properties described in plaint ‘A’ schedule, ‘C’ schedule and items No.1, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 in plaint ‘D’ Schedule. (b) Each plaintiff shall be entitled for 1/4 th share in the above mentioned properties. (c) The partition and separate possession shall be effected in the manner provided under Order 26 Rule 13 of CPC. (d) The first plaintiff shall be entitled for recovery of mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit on 15.02.1991 till the delivery of possession. (e) The transposed plaintiffs 2 and 3 shall be entitled to recover mesne profits from the date of filing their claim in the suit on 01.07.1992 till delivery of possession of their share. (f) There will be a separate enquiry for mesne profits payable as provided under Order 20 Rule 12 of CPC. (g) The first plaintiff shall be entitled to recover costs in the suit from the first defendant. (h) The first plaintiff shall also be entitled to recover compensatory costs of Rs.3,000/- from the first defendant. Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 aggrieved by a portion of the decree wherein the suit was dismissed in respect of items No.2, 6, 9, 9(a) and 9(b) of suit ‘D’ schedule properties are before this Court in this appeal. 6. Heard learned senior counsel Sri.H.N.Shashidhara for Sri.H.S.Suhas, learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel Sri.V.B.Shivakumar for respondent No.1. Perused the entire appeal papers as well as trial Court records. 7. Learned senior counsel for the appellants reiterated the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum in addition to the contention that the trial Court failed to appreciate the material on record while dismissing the suit insofar as items No.2, 6, 9, 9(a) and 9(b) of suit ‘D’ schedule properties are concerned. Learned senior counsel would submit that those items are also joint family properties and the learned trial Judge is not correct in coming to the conclusion that those items of properties are purchased by the first defendant. Learned senior counsel would submit that those items are also joint family properties and the learned trial Judge is not correct in coming to the conclusion that those items of properties are purchased by the first defendant. Thus, it is prayed to allow the appeal insofar as items No.2, 6, 9, 9(a) and 9(b) of suit ‘D’ schedule properties. 8. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.V.B.Shivakumar for respondent No.1 supports the judgment and decree of the trial Court and further submits that there is no material whatsoever to indicate or establish that items against which, the suit is dismissed are joint family properties. He submits that those properties admittedly stand in the name of defendant No.1 and no contra evidence or material is placed on record to establish that those properties are purchased from the joint family nucleus or otherwise. Further, learned counsel would submit that item Nos.6 and 9 are the same properties which are shown as 9(a) and 9(b) of suit ‘D’ schedule properties. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the appeal papers as well as original records, the only point that would fall for our consideration is as to: “Whether the trial Court is justified in rejecting the suit insofar as items No.2, 6, 9, 9(a) and 9(b) of suit ‘D’ schedule properties are concerned?” 10. Answer to the above point would in the affirmative for the following reasons: The suit is one for partition. The relationship between the plaintiffs and defendant No.1 is not in dispute. The plaintiffs and defendant No.1 are the children of Hanumanthappa and Rangamma who died intestate on 6 th February 1982 and on 5 th June 1990 respectively. 11. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed seven issues. In the present appeal, as the appeal is restricted to dismissal of suit insofar as items No.2, 6, 9, 9(a) and 9(b) of suit ‘D’ schedule properties, we are concerned with issue Nos.1 and 5 respectively, which reads as follows: (i) Whether the 1 st defendant proves that the plaintiff and the 3 rd defendant (3 rd plaintiff) executed a release deed dated 10.10.1983 releasing all the rights in the compensation amount and suit properties? (v) Whether the plaintiff proves that suit items 9A and 9B are the joint family properties? 12. (v) Whether the plaintiff proves that suit items 9A and 9B are the joint family properties? 12. Schedule ‘B’ property relates to compensation awarded for acquisition of 35 guntas of land in Sy.No.146/5 of Bilekahalli village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. The first defendant has failed to prove that the plaintiff and 3 rd defendant executed Release Deeds dated 10.10.1983 and 02.03.1984, releasing all the rights in the compensation amount and suit properties. The trial Court on appreciating the material, particularly Ex.D3 and Ex.D4 relinquishment deeds dated 10.10.1983 and 02.03.1984, rightly come to the conclusion that the relinquishing the rights and interest by plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.3 is in respect of the properties of the Firm and not in respect of the properties in dispute in the suit. But, however, to deny schedule-B compensation amount, the trial Court has stated that the property was acquired during the lifetime of father of the plaintiff and defendants i.e., Hanumanthappa and who had drawn a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. If the father of the plaintiff and defendants had receive the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- during his lifetime, that cannot be the subject matter of the suit schedule for partition. The plaintiffs have failed to provide any details with regard to compensation amount and they have also not lead any evidence as to whether the said compensation amount is still available with defendant No.1 or the same is received by him. In the absence of details, the trial Court is justified in denying Schedule-B compensation amount. 13. So far as suit items No.9(a) and 9(b) as well as item Nos.2 and 6 of ‘D’ schedule properties admittedly stand in the name of defendant No.1. Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 who are the appellants herein have failed to produce any evidence or material to establish that the said properties were purchased in the name of defendant No.1 out of the joint family nucleus or from joint family income. Moreover, the trial Court on appreciation of material on record has come to the conclusion that item Nos.2 and 6 of ‘D’ schedule properties are the same properties as described in item No.9(a) and 9(b) of ‘D’ schedule properties. The plaintiffs who have come before the Court alleging that those items are joint family properties, it is for them to prove that they are joint family properties. The plaintiffs who have come before the Court alleging that those items are joint family properties, it is for them to prove that they are joint family properties. In the evidence, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that item Nos.2, 6 and 9, 9(a) and 9(b) of ‘D’ schedule properties are joint family properties though they stand in the name of defendant No.1. But, in support of their statement, the plaintiffs have failed to place on record any documentary evidence. Mere statement without the support of any documentary evidence would not be sufficient to grant the prayer sought for by the plaintiffs. 14. We have gone through the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and the documentary evidence placed on record. But in the entire evidence and material placed on record, there is no document to indicate that item Nos.2, 6 and 9, 9(a) and 9(b) of ‘D’ schedule properties are joint family properties. The trial Court at paragraphs 51, 52 and 54 of the judgment has observed that there is no evidence to show that suit items No.9(a) and 9(b) are joint family properties as contended by the 3 rd plaintiff. When there is no material evidence in support of plaintiffs’ contention that item Nos.2, 6 and 9, 9(a) and 9(b) of ‘D’ schedule properties are joint family properties, the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit insofar as item Nos.2, 6 and 9, 9(a) and 9(b) of ‘D’ schedule properties are concerned. 15. There is no merit in any of the contentions raised by the appellants and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2006 passed in O.S.No.1043/1991 on the file of XVIII Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore.