The burden of proof in establishing self-acquired property and the significance of registered documents in proving the validity of a gift deed.

This, appeal at the instance of original defendants assails judgment and order dated 23rd September, 1993 passed by the Additional District Judge, Gadchiroli in Regular Civil Appeal No.30 of 1993 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gadchiroli dated 29th March, 1985 in Regular Civil Suit No.18 of 1979 and there by decreeing the suit of present respondents/original plaintiffs.

2. It is admitted position on record that original plaintiffs Dharma and Ganpat and defendants Dhondu and Mohan are real brothers. Defendant No.3 Janabai is wife of defendant no.1 Dhondu; defendant no.4 is wife of defendant no.2 Mohan while defendants no.5 and 6 Vas ant and Maroti are sons of defendant no. 1 Dhondu. Respondents/plaintiffs averred in the suit that their grand-father Dharma belonged to village Kunghada, Tahsil Gadchiroli and since it was difficult for him to meet both ends together, their father Bhanu left village Kunghada for village Kurul where he settled and constructed residential house and purchased fields bearing survey nos.31 and 5 situated at village Nimgaon, Revenue Circle Chamorshi as well as field survey nos. 187/19, 197/4K:, 317/3, 197/8 and 317/1 situated at mouza Kurul, Revenue Circle Chamorshi,

Tahsil Gadchiroli out of his self-earning. 'Besides plaintiffs and defendants, Bhanu had one more son by name Mangru and daughter Motabai. Defendant Dhondu, after his marriage, started living separately and stopped helping Bhanu in affairs relating to estate. Similarly, Mangru after his marriage left for his in•laws' place at Lakhmapur Bon and he also became useless for Bhanu. Same was the case with defendant Mohan. Daughter Potabai was given in marriage at Chamorshi and later she died. It was only plaintiffs Dharma and Ganpat who remained with Bhanu to serve the parents in their old age and look after the estate. Out of love and affection which Bhanu had for plaintiffs, he decided to gift suit land to them and accordingly executed registered Gift Deed dated 3-4-1978. Plaintiffs accepted the gift and started' cultivating suit land. Their names were also mutated in revenue records. It is further the case of plaintiffs that after the death of their father Bhanu on 12-12-1978, defendants started giving them trouble having got' annoyed, due to the fact that suit fields were given; to plaintiffs under registered gift deed. Plaintiff no; 1 was also required to lodge police report' against defendants no. 1, 2, 5' and 60n account of assault on him and the said defendants were arrested, and subsequently prosecuted' for an offence punishable under section 324read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal' Code. Defendants still' continued to harass the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs apprehended that the defendants were likely to take possession of suit land per forte and', therefore, they filed suit for prohibitory mandatory injunction restraining the defendants from entering into and from disturbing the possession and cultivation of plaintiffs over suit fields.

3. Defendants filed their Written Statement and' denied suit claim. They alleged that Bhanuhad no authority to execute gift deed since the suit property was purchased from the income derived from joint family assets and it was thus ancestral property. Without prejudice to this, defendants alleged that the gift deed was got executed by plaintiffs by exerting pressure on deceased Bhanu. Defendants also alleged that before his death, Bhanu had executed Will cum Partition Deed on 10-11-1978 in presence of witnesses allotting respective shares to plaintiffs, defendant no.1 as also defendants no.2, 2-A and 2-B (legal representatives of original defendant no.2 Mohan who died during the pendency of suit). It was thus alleged that had Bhanu really executed gift deed on 3-41978 in favour of plaintiffs out of his free volition, subsequent document of will cum Partition Deed would have found mention of it. It was further alleged that plaintiff Dharma retained docum