The burden of proof loses its importance when both sides have adduced evidence, and the court's decision is based on the appreciation of evidence on record.

( 1 ) THIS is defendants' second appeal from the Judgment and decree dated 3-7-1987 passed by (Sri. Y. S. Venkata Rao), Civil judge, Madhugiri in Regular Appeal No. 53 of 1983 (Gangamma v Krishnappa) dismissing the defendants' appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 23-6-1983 delivered by the principal Munsiff, Madhugiri, Tumkur District in O. S. No. 118 of 1979 decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's claim in the suit for half share and declaring the plaintiff to be entitled to half share in the suit property as well as for separate possession after partition.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the present plaintiff-respondent filed the above mentioned suit with the allegations to the effect that suit properties were joint family ancestral properties of defendant 3 and his father. According to the plaintiffs case, defendant 3 who is the father of the plaintiff, sold the properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint in favour of appellants 1 and 2 by registered sale deed dated 10-6-1977. The plaintiffs case is that plaintiff has never been a party to the sale deed executed by defendant 3 in favour of defendants 1 and2. The plaintiffs further case is that plaintiff had got half share in the property in dispute. The plaintiff further alleged that the sale deed dated 10-6-1977 in the schedule properties has neither been for the benefit of family for any legal necessity nor to pay for any other purpose as there were no need. With these allegations, the plaintiff asserted that the sale deed dated 10-6-1977 was invalid and inoperative and it did not bind the plaintiffs share i. e. half share in the suit properties. Plaintiff further alleged that defendants-appellants 1 and 2 to have been in possession of the properties wrongfully. Hence, the cause of action for filing the suit for declaration of plaintiffs half share and its separate possession and for mesne profits. So the plaintiff has filed the suit for the said reliefs.

( 3 ) DEFENDANT 3 did not file any written statement in the case nor did contest the plaintiffs case. It has been brought to my notice that defendant 3 died during the course of the trial of the case and before the evidence had been recorded. Defendants 1 and 2 filed the written statement denying the plaintiffs claim that the suit property has been joint ancestral properties i. e. joint ancestral properties of the plaintiff-respondent and defendant 3. The defendant 3's case has been that property was the self-acquired property of defendant 3 and that defendant 1 purchased the said property from defendant 3 by sale deed dated 10-6-1977 and as the property was self-acquired property of defendant 3, so the sale deed executed by defendant 3 was valid with respect to entire property and the plaintiff has got no claim nor has been entitled to claim the relief. The plaintiff by filing reapplication has stated that the suit property originally belonged to his grand-father and by sale deed dated 23-12-1974 executed by the grand-father and defendant 3, it was transferred to Chikkagopanna and thereafter it was owned by the plaintiff and his father. The case of the plaintiff in the reapplication had been that defendant 3 had been the Manager of the joint family and that the consideration was paid out of the joint income of the plaintiff and his father defendant 3. The plaintiff took the plea that defendant 3 could not transfer the entire property.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:" (1) Are plaint schedule properties ancestral properties? (2) Does sale of suit properties in favour of defendants 1 and 2 not bind the share of plaintiff? (3) Is plaintiff entitled to possession of the suit properties? (4) Is plaintiff entitled to the mesne profits? (5) What order or decree?"

( 5 ) THE learned Munsiff who tried the case after examining the evidence on record held that plaintiff have been able to prove that the properties in dispu