IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting joint ownership of a property, and failure to provide evidence of joint family income and purchase through the nucleus of joint family income leads to the presumption of self-acquired property by the individual in whose name the property is registered.

JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal is filed by the Appellants challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 19 May 2023 passed by the District Judge-2, Kolhapur allowing Regular Civil Appeal No. 230 of 2016 and reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 8 July 2016 passed by the 8th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Kolhapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 912 of 2014. On account of the impugned decree passed by the first Appellate Court, Plaintiff’s suit for recovery of possession of the suit property has been decreed with further directions to conduct an enquiry into mesne profits under Order 21 Rule 12(1C) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code). Appellants, who are Original Defendants, are aggrieved by the decision of the first Appellate Court and have filed the present Appeal.

2. House property bearing City Survey No. 1046-C/13/3 admeasuring 33.6 sq.mtrs and two rooms in the house constructed thereon on the first floor admeasuring 386 sq. ft at Kolhapur is the subject matter of the suit (suit property). Plaintiff's case, as pleaded in the plaint, is that the land bearing C.T.S. No.1046/13/9/13 admeasuring 127.3 sq.mtrs was owned by Mr. Annaso Gangadhar Athane. Out of that property, an area admeasuring 33.3 sq.mtrs was purchased by Plaintiff’s father- Dattatraya by registered Sale-deed dated 3 June 1968 by paying consideration of Rs.2,000/-. With a view to correct the error of non-description of division number, registered Correction Deed dated 6 May 1970 was executed by the vendor in favour of Plaintiff’s father. On the basis of the said two documents, the Plaintiff claims ownership through his father in the suit property. It is Plaintiff’s case that his father was in service at Shahu Mill, Kolhapur and he purchased the suit property out of his personal income and therefore the suit property is his self-acquired property. That the entire family consisting of Plaintiff, his parents and sisters were residing in the suit property before purchase thereof and all the charges like Municipal Taxes, Electricity Bill, etc. were always paid by the Plaintiff’s father.

3. Plaintiff’s father-Dattatray Laxman Diwase expired on 14 December 1998. Plaintiff’s sisters executed registered Relinquishment Deed dated 26 December 2008 releasing their rights in respect of the suit property in Plaintiff’s favour. That therefore Plaintiff’s name was mutated to the revenue records of the suit property. Plaintiff pleaded that his uncle-Dnyanu Laxman Diwase owned Plot No.12 admeasuring 500 sq.ft at Mahadik Vasahat, Kolhapur, in which his entire family consisting of his children were residing. That the said plot was given for development by the family of Dnyanu in 1991-92 and consideration for such development was received by Dnyanu’s family.

4. Defendant No.1 is the son of Dnyanu Laxman Diwase and Plaintiff’s cousin and Defendant Nos.2 and 3 are wife and son of Defendant No.1. It is Plaintiff’s case that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 approached him in January 2013 and requested for temporary accommodation in the suit property till acquisition of alternate premises by them. Plaintiff accordingly permitted Defendants to reside in the suit property on temporary basis. That without Plaintiff’s permission, Defendant No.2 filed an application for electricity connection in her name which was objected to by the Plaintiff. That despite Plaintiff’s objection, the Electricity Company provided electricity connection in the name of Defendant No.2. That Plaintiff requested the Defendants to vacate the suit premises. As Defendants refused to vacate the suit premises, Plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No. 912 of 2014 in the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Kolhapur seeking recovery of possession of the suit property from the Defendants as well as for mense profits. The suit was defended by the Defendants by filing Written Statement inter-alia contending that the father of the Defendant had independent income through vegetable business and that the suit property was purchased j