10-11-1978. Under Ex.B74 Uma Reddy gifted properties in favour of P.W.1 free of consideration. The property fell to the share of Bhoopathi Reddy—D.W.2, earlier given in writing, was mutated in his name and patta was also granted; the properties which fell to the share of his elder son—Ram Chandra Reddy were given to P.W.1 and he has no objection for mutation of patta in the name of P.W.1. The remaining properties, which were in name of ram Chandra Reddy, can go to his heirs as per law, which clearly goes to show there was earlier partition, and the properties were divided and the respective parties got mutated by transferring pattas. The hypothecation deed—Ex.A21 signed by the parties also substantiates prior partition, as D.W.2 mentioned as Kartha of his family, Uma Reddy as Kartha of his family and Raji Reddy as Kartha of his family. Had there been joint family existed, which mortgaged the entire property for availing the loan, there is no necessity to mention each party as Kartha of its individual families, which clearly shows there was partition of properties. For availing the loan all the three Karthas of their respective families have signed on hypothecation deed. Merely because they mortgaged the property for securing the loan for purchase of tractor by D.W.2 cannot lead to conclusion that joint family still exists. Ex.B76 loan clearance certificate and receipts under Exs.B135, 146 and 150 clearly shows that D.W.2 cleared the loan amount for tractor and trailor of ‘E’ schedule property. The lower court after taking into consideration the above fact held that the plaintiffs have not produced a single receipt evidencing payment of instalments to the Co-operative Bank. Further, under Ex.B125 certificate issued by the M.R.O. shows that the tractor
