The burden of proof lies on plaintiffs to establish their claims of joint ownership in partition suits, failing which the trial court's findings stand affirmed.

JUDGMENT :

(R. NATARAJ, J.)

The unsuccessful plaintiffs No.1, 2 3(a), 3(b), 4 and 5 in O.S. No.221/2014 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ballari, have filed this Regular First appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2018 passed therein by which the suit filed by them for partition and separate possession of their 5/6^th share in the suit schedule properties was dismissed.

2. For the sake of convenience and easy understanding, the parties shall henceforth be referred to as they were arrayed before the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiffs claimed that their father had suffered severe loss in business and, in order to safeguard the interest of the members of the family and to insulate the family against any claim by the creditors, he had purchased the suit schedule ‘A’ property in the name of the defendant on 10.12.1981. They claimed that the sale deed in favour of defendant No.1 was executed nominally and the consideration for purchase of the suit schedule ‘A’ property was paid by the father. They claimed that the defendant, who was married on 04.01.1976 to her maternal uncle, lived for a short period in India and shifted to Germany. They, therefore, claimed that suit schedule ‘A’ property was purchased out of the funds of the joint family and therefore, remained a joint family property. They claimed that the father had let out front portion of the property to Smt. Kalavathi for running a hotel and, after his death, the defendant visited the suit property to usurp it and alienate the same taking advantage that it stood in her name. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendant caused a notice which was suitably replied by them and thereafter, they demanded the defendant to handover their legitimate share. They claimed that the defendant initially agreed, but, at the instigation of her husband, she refused to give any share and issued a notice to Smt. Kalavathi on 30.06.2014 to vacate the portion of the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs No.1 and 3 were running a service station in the suit schedule ‘A’ property from the year 1988 after obtaining licence from the concerned authorities and were paying the municipal tax, electricity bill and water bill etc. Therefore, they contended the suit schedule ‘A’ property was the property of the joint family where they too had a share which the defendant failed to acknowledge. Thus, they filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule ‘A’ property. In so far as suit schedule ‘B’ property is concerned, they contended that the said property belonged to the joint family and that they were entitled to a share in that property also.

4. The defendant contested the suit and claimed that she had lawfully purchased the suit schedule ‘A’ property for valid consideration and that the sale deed was executed in her name, and she was represented by her father. She claimed that the consideration for purchase of suit schedule ‘A’ property was paid by her husband who was transferring the amounts to her father. She therefore, contended that the suit schedule ‘A’ property was her absolute property where neither her father nor the plaintiffs had any share. She claimed that one of the rooms in suit schedule ‘A’ property was permitted to be occupied by plaintiff No.1 as he was authorized to take care of the property in her absence. She claimed that her father and mother were also permitted to stay in the suit property. She claimed that the plaintiff No.2 was not in the suit property, but was residing in Shahapura, as he was working as a Depot Manager in KSRTC at Shahapura, Yadgiri District. Likewise, she cla