In joint family property disputes, the burden of proof lies with the party claiming self-acquisition, and failure to substantiate claims results in the affirmation of joint property status.

JUDGMENT :

H.P.SANDESH, J.

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the caveator/respondent No.1.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiffs before the Trial Court while seeking the relief of partition and separate possession, it is contended that the plaintiffs and the defendants are the members of the joint family and they constitute a joint family and the suit schedule properties are the joint family properties. Item Nos.1 to 8 and 10 have fallen to the share of defendant No.1. It is contended that schedule item No.9 is the self-acquired property of defendant No.2. In view of the defence taken, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The Trial Court granted an opportunity to both the parties to substantiate their contention. The Trial Court having considered the material on record, comes to the conclusion that the plaintiffs and the defendants constitute a joint family and the suit schedule properties are the properties belonging to the family and did not accept the contention of the defendants that there was already a partition, since the very defendant denied the signature available in the document of Ex.P.15, which is marked as palu parikath. The claim of the defendants that item No.9 is the self-acquired property of defendant No.2 is also not accepted and comes to the conclusion that the suit schedule properties belongs to the family and granted the relief in favour of plaintiff Nos.1 and 2.

4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, an appeal is filed before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court having considered the grounds which have been urged in the appeal memo, formulated the points whether the plaintiffs have established that they and defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 are the members of the joint family, whether the suit item No.1 to 8 and 10 fallen to the share of defendant No.1 as contended by defendant No.1 and suit item No.9 is the self- acquired property of defendant No.2, whether defendant Nos.1(a), 1(b) and 2 establishes that the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties and mis-joinder of unnecessary parties and non inclusion of properties, whether defendant Nos.1(a) and 1(b) and 2 established that suit is barred by limitation and whether the Trial Court has committed an error in allotting 2/7^th share each to the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties and whether the impugned judgment requires interference. The First Appellate Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered point No.1 in the affirmative that the plaintiffs and defendant Nos.1, 3 to 6 are the members of joint family and answered point Nos.2 to 4 in the negative and point Nos.5 and 6 partly in the affirmative and modified the judgment of the Trial Court granting 1/7^th share each in the suit schedule properties.

5. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellants before this Court is that both the Courts failed to consider the material on record. The learned counsel would vehemently contend that both the Courts committed an error in decreeing the suit for partition when the plaintiffs themselves produced the previous palupatti of the year 1977 and admitted the papupatti of 1977 in the pleadings of the previous suit. The learned counsel contend that both the Courts committed an error in coming to the conclusion that item No.9 wa