IMPORTANT POINT
[The burden of proof for exclusive ownership lies with the claimant, and joint ownership is established through the names on the sale deeds unless proven otherwise.]

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

3. The second appeal is arising out of the judgment and decree dtd. 27/9/2019 passed by District Judge-3, Amravati, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dtd. 13/8/2007 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Amravati in Special Civil Suit No.31 of 1996, decreeing the suit for partition and separate possession.

4. The brief facts of the present case are as under: (The parties are referred to as per their status before the trial Court) The plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed a suit for partition and separate possession. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff Nos.1 and 2 and the defendant Nos.1 and 2 are the real brothers and they jointly purchased the field survey No.35/2 Adm. 24A 5G and survey No.66 Adm. 10A 27G (hereinafter referred to as "suit property") situated at Pragane Badnera, Taluka and District Amravati and as such, they are having 1/4th share each in the suit field being co-owners.

5. The defendant No.1 appeared and resisted the claim. It is the case of the defendant No.1 that, though the suit field was purchased in joint names of the plaintiffs and the defendants, he is an exclusive owner of the suit property, as he purchased the same from his own funds.

6. The learned trial Court, after examining and scrutinizing the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the parties, decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiffs and the defendants are having th share each in the suit property.

7. The defendant No.1 carried an appeal before the District Judge by Regular Civil Appeal No. 208 of 2012 which came to be dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dtd. 27/9/2019. The same is the subject matter in the present appeal.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants/defendant No.1 submits that the suit property was purchased by him from his own funds. However, at the relevant time, his father was in jail and his mother advised him to purchase the suit property in joint names along with his brothers. Therefore, he purchased the suit property in joint names. It is submitted that, both the Courts below have committed error in holding that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiffs and the defendants jointly.

9. It is further submitted that though the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) was decided but not on merit. He therefore, submits that the points raised in the application, have not been considered by the learned lower Appellate Court.

10. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs points out that both the courts below have recorded finding of fact that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiffs and the defendants jointly. He further points out that it has come on record that the other two ancestral properties were sold out and from its sale proceeds the present suit property was purchased jointly by the plaintiffs and the defendants. Accordingly, he submits that finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below are based on the evidence and as there is no perversity committed, there is no scope under Sec. 100 of the CPC.

11. In light of the rival contentions of the parties, I have perused the record and the impugned judgments and the decree.

12. Admittedly, the sale deeds, in respect of the suit property, stand in the names of the plaintiffs and the defendants jointly and as such, the plaintiffs are claiming 1/4th share in the suit property.

13. The defendant No.1 has set up a defence that he is an exclusive owner of the suit property, as he has purchased it from his own funds and the plaintiffs and defendant No.2 have not contributed a single pie in the said transaction.

14. Thus, the burden would lie on the defendant No.1 to prove the said fact. However, both the Courts below have categorically observed that the defendant No.1 has failed to prove the said fact by leading sufficient evidence.

15. The defendant No.1 is harp