JUDGMENT : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2013, passed in R.A.No.110/2012 by the learned Fast Track Court, Chikmagalur, and the judgment and decree dated 01.09.2012 passed in O.S.No.104/2008 by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikmagalur. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to, based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was defendant No.2, respondent No.1 was the plaintiff, and respondent Nos.2 to 4 were the other defendants. 3. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for partition and separate possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is the daughter of the late Alex D’Souza, and defendant No.1 is the mother of the plaintiff, defendant Nos.2 and 3 are the brothers, and defendant No.4 is the sister of the plaintiff. During the lifetime of late Alex D’Souza, he acquired the suit schedule properties. The suit schedule properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiff and the defendants, and no partition effected by metes and bounds between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff demanded partition, and separate possession. The defendants refused to effect partition. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for partition and separate possession. Accordingly, prays to decree the suit. 3.1. Defendant No.1 filed a written statement admitting the relationship and denying the other averments made in the plaint. It is contended that she is the wife of Alex D’Souza, who passed away on 20.05.2003. After the demise of Alex D’Souza, the plaintiff and defendants reside together, and constitute a joint family. It is contended that during the lifetime of Alex D’Souza, he performed the marriages of the plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 and 4. The suit properties have not been partitioned. Defendant No.1 is entitled to a 1/3 rd share in the suit schedule properties, and accordingly, prays for a decree in the suit, and allotment of a share to defendant No.1. 3.2. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement admitting the relationship between the parties to the petition and denied the other averments made in the plaint. Defendant No.1 is entitled to a 1/3 rd share in the suit schedule properties, and accordingly, prays for a decree in the suit, and allotment of a share to defendant No.1. 3.2. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement admitting the relationship between the parties to the petition and denied the other averments made in the plaint. It is contended that item Nos.1, 2 and 5 were owned and possessed by Alex D’Souza to the extent of 1 acre, and the remaining item Nos.3 and 4 and remaining 1 acre and 15 guntas in item No.1 are the self-acquired properties of defendant No.2, and they are not the joint family properties. It is contended that the suit is bad for the non-joinder of necessary parties, as one Lucy Rebello, who was allotted a share, as per the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.57/1996, is a necessary party to the suit. Three other suits are pending regarding the suit schedule properties. To overcome those litigations, by suppressing the true facts, the plaintiff filed the present suit, and accordingly, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.2 insofar as item Nos. 4 and 5 are concerned. 3.3. Defendant No.3 filed a written statement admitting the relationship between the parties to the suit, and denied the other averments made in the plaint. Defendant No.3 admitted that the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to defendant No.3 while constructing the house. All the suit schedule properties are their joint family properties. It is contended that the newly built house by defendant No.2 has not been included in the suit. Hence, a suit for partial partition is not maintainable. Therefore, prays to dismiss the suit against defendant No.3. 3.4. The Trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that all the suit schedule properties are joint family properties of her and the defendant? 2) Whether defendant No.2 proves that 1 acre 15 guntas in item No.1 and item No.3 and 4 are his self-acquired properties? 3) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4) Whether defendant No.2 proves that suit is under valued in respect of item No.5? 5) Whether defendant No.3 proves that the plaintiff and other defendants are liable to reimburse the expenditure as stated in para 7 of his written statement? 3) Whether the defendant No.2 proves that suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4) Whether defendant No.2 proves that suit is under valued in respect of item No.5? 5) Whether defendant No.3 proves that the plaintiff and other defendants are liable to reimburse the expenditure as stated in para 7 of his written statement? 6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of partition and separate possession of her 1/5 th share? 7) Whether defendant No.1 proves that she is entitled for 1/3 rd share in the suit schedule properties? 8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mesne profits? 9) What order or decree? 3.5. The plaintiff, to substantiate her case, examined herself as PW-1, and marked 7 documents as Exs.P1 and P7. In rebuttal, defendant Nos.1 to 3 were examined as DWs.1 to 3, and marked 21 documents as Exs.D1 to D21. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and assessing the verbal and documentary evidence of the parties, answered issue Nos.1, 6 to 8 in the affirmative, issue Nos.2 to 5 in the negative, and issue No.9 as per the final order. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed vide judgment dated 01.09.2012. It is ordered and decreed that the plaintiff has got a 1/6 th share over the suit schedule properties and she is entitled to partition and separate possession of the same by metes and bounds. It is also ordered and decreed that defendant No.1 has got a 2/6 th share over the suit schedule properties and defendant Nos.2 to 4 are entitled to 1/6 th share each over the suit schedule properties and it is ordered and decreed that the plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits. However, the quantum of mesne profits has to be determined through a separate enquiry in final decree proceedings. 3.6. Defendant No.2, aggrieved by the judgment and preliminary decree dated 01.09.2012 passed in O.S.No.104/2008, insofar as item Nos.4 and 5, preferred an appeal in R.A.No.110/2012 on the file of the Fast Track Court, Chikmagalur. 3.7. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikmagalur dated 01.09.2012 in O.S.No.104/2008 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff is illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside? 2) What order? 3.8. 3.7. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has framed the following points for consideration: 1) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikmagalur dated 01.09.2012 in O.S.No.104/2008 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff is illegal, perverse and liable to be set aside? 2) What order? 3.8. The First Appellate Court, after reassessing the verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the negative and point No.2 as per the final order. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.104/2008 dated 01.09.2012 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Chikmagalur was confirmed. Defendant No.2, aggrieved by the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, filed this Regular Second Appeal. 3.9. Though a notice was issued to the respondents, despite the service of a notice, the respondents remained unrepresented. 4. Heard the arguments of Sri. Manjunath Prasad, H.N., learned counsel for defendant No.2. 5. Learned counsel for defendant No.2 submits that there is no joint family concept in the Christian community. He submits that item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of defendant No.2, as he had purchased item Nos.3 and 4 under the registered sale deed. He submits that both courts below have passed the judgments, as if the parties to the suit are Hindus. He submits that the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act do not apply to the case at hand. He submits that the provisions of the Indian Succession Act apply to the Christian community. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the appeal. 6. This Court, vide order 05.11.2020, admitted the appeal to consider the following substantial questions of law : 1. Whether the Courts below were justified in law in extending the concept of joint family and joint family properties to the parties in the suit who are admittedly governed by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956? Note: Due to oversight, it is typed as Hindu Succession Act, it should be read as Indian Succession Act, 1925. 2. Whether the courts below have justified in law in granting the decree of partition inspite of the fact that there was already a decree of partition in O.S.No.57/1996? 7. Reg. Note: Due to oversight, it is typed as Hindu Succession Act, it should be read as Indian Succession Act, 1925. 2. Whether the courts below have justified in law in granting the decree of partition inspite of the fact that there was already a decree of partition in O.S.No.57/1996? 7. Reg. Substantial question of law No.1 There is no dispute regarding the relationship between the parties, and the nature of the suit schedule properties insofar as item Nos.1, 2 and 5 are concerned. Now, there is a dispute regarding item Nos.3 and 4. The plaintiffs, to prove that item Nos.3 and 4 are the joint family properties, the plaintiff except oral evidence, has not produced any records to establish that the said properties are acquired out of the joint family funds, the parties are Christians, and are governed by the provisions of the Indian Succession Act. The plaintiff has claimed a 1/5 th share in the suit schedule properties. It is pertinent to note that defendant No.2 admitted regarding the nature of the suit schedule properties insofar as item Nos.1, 2 and 5 are concerned and the plaintiff and defendants are entitled to a partition in item Nos.1, 2 and 5 of the suit properties. Now, the dispute between the parties is, regarding item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and the other defendants have contributed for purchasing item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties, and the title deeds of the suit item Nos.3 and 4 and land records stood in the name of defendant No.2. 8. The concept of a joint family is largely unknown to the Christian community. As observed above, the parties are Christians and the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 governed them. On the perusal of the judgments and decrees passed by the courts below, it appears that the courts below have dealt with this matter, as if the parties are Hindus. Further, defendant No.2, to prove that item Nos. 3 and 4 are self-acquired properties, has produced the sale deeds marked as Ex.D1, Ex.D4 and Ex.D7, wherein defendant No.2 has purchased the properties in item Nos. 3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties. 9. Further, defendant No.2, to prove that item Nos. 3 and 4 are self-acquired properties, has produced the sale deeds marked as Ex.D1, Ex.D4 and Ex.D7, wherein defendant No.2 has purchased the properties in item Nos. 3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties. 9. As observed above, there is no joint family concept in Christian community, and it is not the case that, the plaintiff and the other defendants have contributed for purchasing items Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties. The said aspect was not correctly considered by either of the courts below, and the trial Court decreed the suit, only on the grounds that defendant Nos.2 and 3 were not doing any business jointly, or had no such joint avocation, so as to purchase the properties jointly in their names. 10. In a suit for partition and separate possession, the initial burden is always on the plaintiff to establish the relationship between the parties to the suit, and the nature of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiff has not produced any records to establish that item Nos.3 and 4 were purchased jointly, and further, the plaintiff has not produced any records to establish that the plaintiff and the other defendants have contributed for purchasing item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties. Thus, the trial Court committed an error in granting a share in item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties without considering Exs.D1, 4 and 7. The first Appellate Court, without reassessing the entire evidence on record, has affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. As the parties are Christian, the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 apply, and there is no concept of joint family. Both the courts below, without considering the said aspect, have proceeded to decree the suit regarding item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties. Thus, both courts below have committed an error in decreeing the suit insofar as item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law No.1 in the negative. 11. R EG . Thus, both courts below have committed an error in decreeing the suit insofar as item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties. In view of the above discussion, I answer the substantial question of law No.1 in the negative. 11. R EG . S UBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW N O .2: Though, it is the case of defendant No.2 that there was a decree for partition in O.S.No.57/1996, but the learned counsel for defendant No.2 submits that defendant No.2 has confined this appeal regarding item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties, and defendant No.2 has no objection to confirm the judgment and decree passed by the courts below insofar as item Nos.1, 2 and 5 of the suit schedule properties. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for defendant No.2, substantial question of law No.2 does not survive for consideration. 12. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: O RDER i. The Regular Second Appeal is allowed in part. ii. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.104/2008 dated 01.09.2012, is partly set aside insofar as item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit schedule properties, and the suit of the plaintiff insofar as item Nos.3 and 4 of the suit property is dismissed. iii. The rest of the judgment passed by the courts below, are hereby maintained. iv. No order as to the costs. In view of the disposal of the appeal, I.A.No.2/2013 do not survive for consideration, and is, accordingly disposed of.