The court reaffirmed that the burden of proving self-acquisition of assets lies with the defendants, emphasizing the prima facie case established by the plaintiff for joint family ownership of properties.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J.

1. Three appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they emanate out of the same impugned judgment and order dated April 8, 2025 passed in three interlocutory applications filed in CS No. 128 of 2016.

2. By the impugned judgment and order, learned Single Judge granted relief to the plaintiff to the suit to a certain extent. Plaintiff is aggrieved by the portion of the relief which was not granted by the learned Single Judge and therefore, filed an appeal being APO/51/2025.

3. The next appeal is at the behest of defendant no. 5 in the suit. The appeal of the defendant no. 5 is registered as APDT/26/2025 while the appeal of the defendant nos. 2 and 7 is registered as APDT/27/2025.

4. For the sake convenience, the parties in the present three appeals are referred to in the manner as they appear in the plaint in the suit.

5. Plaintiff filed a suit for partition and administration of the assets and properties of the Agarwala family being CS/128/2016. In such suit, plaintiff filed three interlocutory applications being GA/2/2016, GA/5/2017 and GA/12/2021.

6. Essentially, by those three interlocutory applications, the plaintiff was seeking interim protection relating to the assets involved in the suit.

7. Plaint case of the appellant is that, the properties described in the Schedules A, B, C and D to the plaint emanated out of the joint family business. They are joint family assets and liable to be partitioned and administered, in accordance with law. In Schedule A to the plaint, list of immovable properties are described while Schedule B to the plaint describes bank accounts of the joint family, Schedule C describes the lockers and Schedule D describes the Demat/Share accounts.

8. Contention of the plaintiff in its appeal is that, since, assets of joint family described in the four schedules to the plaint belong to the joint family, in absence of a partition and administration in respect thereof, such properties and assets should be protected and preserved till the disposal of the suit.

9. Learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, the learned Judge erred in not granting the relief of protection and preservation of the assets and properties described in the four schedules to the plaint. He submits that, the plaintiff established at the prima facie level that, the corpus of the assets and properties emanated out of the joint family with none of the defendants establishing any independent source of income. Rather, assets belonging to the joint family were utilized for the purpose of creating further assets. In particular, he refers to a partnership firm which subsequently converted into a sole proprietorship. He submits that, the land admittedly belonged to the plaintiff and his son, was utilized for the purpose of other business of the joint family bidding at different auctions.

10. Learned Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that, during the pendency of the suit, the assets and properties described in the plaint should be adequately preserved.

11. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant no. 5 submits that, the immovable properties in respect of which the plaintiff claims the share is at best can sustain a claim of 1/8 for the plaintiff. Apart from the parties to the suit, such properties are owned by other persons. Such persons are not parties to the suit.

12. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the defendant no. 5 submits that, the assets described in the four schedules to the plaint