The burden of proof lies with the Plaintiffs to establish the joint family character of properties in a partition suit, and mere possession does not suffice to validate ownership claims.

JUDGMENT :

T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.

1. This Second Appeal was filed by the Appellants/L.Rs of the Defendant under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C.’) against the Judgment and decree dated 11.03.2002 passed in A.S. No. 17 of 1998 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Nellore (for short, ‘the 1st Appellate Court’) reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 07.11.1997 passed in O.S. No. 1 of 1992 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kavali (for short ‘the trial Court’).

2. Respondents 1 and 2 are the Plaintiffs who filed the suit in O.S. No. 1 of 1992 for partitioning plaint schedule property into three equal shares and for separate possession of two such shares and future profits.

3. It is prudent to refer to the parties as they are originally presented in the suit O.S. No. 1 of 1992 to minimize any potential confusion.

4. The factual matrix essential for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties can be outlined as follows:

Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Defendant are the undivided sons of Karthana Ankaiah of Kaligiri Village. Their father passed away intestate in 1965, followed by their mother’s death in 1984. The 1st Plaintiff served as a Conductor with APSRTC and retired on 01.07.1990. The 2nd Plaintiff is currently employed as an Elementary School Teacher in Kandriga, Kaligiri Mandal. The joint family, comprising the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, owns the property detailed in the plaint schedule. Due to their employment, Plaintiffs 1 and 2 reside elsewhere, while Defendant continues to live in the village, managing the family properties in Kaligiri since their father’s passing. Following their mother’s death, Plaintiffs 1 and 2 have repeatedly requested the Defendant for partition and separate possession of the schedule properties. However, the Defendant has consistently deferred these requests under various pretexts. On 18.01.1991, the Plaintiffs issued a notice through their advocate demanding partition, yet the Defendant failed to respond, despite acknowledging receipt of the notice. The Plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit.

5. In the written statement, Defendant denies the plaint averments and contends that Item No. 4 of the plaint schedule property was purchased by Defendant from one Dakarapu Krishna Rao about ten years ago. Items No. 5 and 6 shown in the plaint schedule have been occupied by Defendant during 1972, and Item No. 7 belongs to Defendant’s wife by the patta issued by the Government in A.D. No. 779/84. Item No. 8 of the plaint schedule property belongs to one Maddineni Thirupalu, who got it under patta in the year 1976 and from whom Defendant purchased the same for Rs.3,600/- under an agreement of sale dated 11.03.1979. Thus, the joint family had nothing to do with Items No. 4 to 8 of the plaint schedule. The Plaintiffs, therefore, hold no rights or claims to the property outlined in the plaint schedule, and they cannot seek a partition of the suit schedule properties.

6. Based on the above pleadings in O.S. No. 1 of 1992, the trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the Plaintiffs have any right over the plaint schedule properties?

(2) Whether the Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Defendant are undivided brothers as alleged in the plaint?

(3) Whether items 5 and 6 shown in the plaint separate have been occupied by the Defendant?

(4) Whether Item 8 of the plaint schedule properties are owned by the Maddineni Tirupalu?

(5) To what relief?

7. Subsequently, the trial Court struck out Issues Nos.1 and 4, and they are re-casted as per the provisions under Order 14, Rule 5 of C.P.C. The issues 1 and 4 are re-caste as follows:

(1) Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled for partition of suit schedule property and for separate possession as prayed?

(4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to profits as prayed?

8. During the trial, PWs. 1 to 5 were examined on behalf of the Plaintiffs and marked Exs.A.1 to A.7 documents. Conversely, on behalf of the Defendant, DWs. 1 to 5 were examined and