Under Muslim law, the concept of joint family property is not recognized, and the burden of proof lies on the party claiming joint acquisition.

( 1 ) CODE of Civil Procedure, from the judgment and decree dated 22-9-1994, delivered by the district judge, kolar, in regular appeal No. 7 of 1979, arising out of judgment and decree dated 14-12-1978, passed in suit, o. s. No. 59 of 1974, by the principal civil judge and chief judicial magistrate, kolar. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for partition and for separate possession of their th share as claimed by them in the plaint properties mentioned in schedules a and b. The trial court had dismissed the suit and the 1st appellate court having allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and by decreeing the plaintiffs claim.

( 2 ) THE parties to the litigation are muslims or mohammed ansand according to the case of the plaintiffs, shaik budan sab, had five sons. That plaintiffs 1 and 2, defendants 1, 2 and 3, were the five sons and whereas, plaintiffs 1 and 2, as per their pleadings claimed that the properties in schedules a and b belonged to the joint family and were alleged to have been acquired from the income of ancestral properties and out of joint labour and income of the parties. Further, defendant 3-khasimsab released himself from the joint family by relinquishing all his rights in the schedule properties in favour of plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2, by registered relinquishment deed. That plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2, continued to live as members of the joint family and enjoyed the schedule properties jointly. The plaintiffs claim that after relinquishment of his share by defendant 3, the plaintiff 1 and 2 and defendants 1 and 2, are entitled to 1/4th share each in the property. That defendants 1 and 2, were trying to enter into an illegal transaction with certain strangers, namely, defendants 4 and 5, in the original suit and as plaintiffs having apprehended likely injury and loss to their interest, they filed the suit for partition and separate possession of their shares.

( 3 ) DURING pendency of the suit, first defendant died and his legal representatives had been brought on record, as defendant l (a) to 1 (f ). The defendant 1, filed the written statement and denied the plaintiffs case. He denied that there was any such thing as joint family or joint family properties. The defendants submitted that the assertions or allegations that the joint family owned joint properties out of ancestral properties etc. Are all false and incorrect. The defendant 1, claimed the property in dispute to be the self-acquired property. The case of the alleged release was also said to be false. It was denied that defendant 1, was manager of the joint family like plaintiffs, defendant 2, is not entitled to any share.

( 4 ) THE trial court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:1. Whether the above plaintiffs prove that they are the persons jointly in possession and are entitled to the 1/4th share of each of them? 2. Whether the first defendant proves that the schedule properties are his self-acquisition and are in his exclusive possession? 3. To what share if any the plaintiffs are entitled to?

( 5 ) THE trial court after examining the evidence produced by the parties held that the properties in dispute, namely, items 1 to 3 and 5 are joint or joint family properties of the parties to suit nor have been proved, as claimed, to have been purchased out of the savings which they collected from out of the income of the joint family. The trial court further held that properties - items 1 to 3 and 5, were self-acquired properties of defendant 1 and of defendants l (a) to 1 (f) and the plaintiffs-respondents did not have any right or claim or share therein. He further held that item No. 4, is the property recorded in the name of jaina-bi, who the plaintiffs claim was not their mother, but, their mother's name was usman-bi and as such, the trial court held that jaina-bi, is not the mother of the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs were held not enti