The burden of proof in establishing joint family ancestral properties and the relevance of admissions in the written statement.

JUDGMENT

Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. - This is defendants' second appeal challenging the concurrent findings of both the Courts below granting share to the respondents/plaintiffs by holding that the suit properties are joint family ancestral properties.

2. The brief facts leading to this second appeal are as under:

Respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for partition and separate possession by specifically contending that one Chaluvachari was the propositus who had two sons by name, Puttaswamachari and Ramachari. The respondents/plaintiffs are claiming to be the legal heirs of Ramachari whereas appellants/defendants are claiming to be legal heirs of Puttaswamachari. Respondents/plaintiffs averred in the plaint that propositus Chaluvachari was the manager of the joint family and after his death, the ancestor of appellants/defendants namely, Puttaswamachari being the eldest member became the manager of the joint family. At para 3 of the plaint, respondents/plaintiffs have specifically averred that both brothers, i.e., Puttaswamachari and Ramachari were very hard working and as such they pooled their hard work and income from the joint family and acquired some more properties out of the income of joint family and joint labour. The respondents/plaintiffs specifically contended at para 3 of the plaint that family properties are very fertile lands and were yielding very good income and as such the family was able to save surplus income after the maintenance of the joint family.

3. The present suit is filed by contending that since January 2001 the present appellants/defendants are acting adversely to the interest of respondents/plaintiffs and there was further allegation in the plaint that appellants/defendants are intending to sell some of the suit schedule properties and hence, the present suit is filed since appellants/defendants refused to effect partition by metes and bounds.

4. The present appellants/defendants on receipt of summons contested the proceedings by filing written statement. At para 4 of the written statement, the present appellants/defendants stoutly denied the nature of the properties. At para 4 of the written statement, the present appellants/defendants specifically contended that suit properties are not joint family properties. At para 13 of the written statement, the present appellants/defendants have set up a defence apart from denying the averment made in the plaint. The appellants/defendants specifically contended that husband of defendant No.1 was granted item No.2 bearing Sy.No.18 which is renumbered as Sy.No.203 by the competent authority. As such, the respondents/plaintiffs have no semblance of right over the suit item No.2. Insofar as item No.3 is concerned, the appellants/defendants averred in the written statement that it does not belong to the family of respondents/plaintiffs. The appellants/defendants also stoutly denied that item No.4 is joint family ancestral property.

5. The trial Court based on the rival contentions framed following issues:

i) Whether the genealogy of the family shown in the plaint is correct?

ii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that suit properties are the undivided joint family properties of themselves and defendants?

iii) Whether the plaintiffs prove that they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties along with defendants as joint owners?

iv) Whether the defendants prove that the suit item no.2 is their self-acquired property?

v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled further reliefs sought for?

vi) What order or decree?

6. The respondents/plaintiffs in support of their contention examined plaintiff No.2 as P.W.1 and one independent witness was examined as P.W.2 and relied on one document as Ex.P1. The appellants/defendants in support of their contentions examined defendant No.2 as D.W.1 and by way of rebuttal evidence produced documentary evidence vide Exs.D1 to D7.

7. The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence at para 10 has recorded a findin