The burden of proof in establishing joint family property or self-acquisition, and the presumption of property being tarwad property when acquired in the name of the karanavan.

1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants and the appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiffs for redemption and recovery of possession of the plaint property outstanding on mortgage.

2. The facts alleged in the plaint are stated below. The plaint property 52 cents in extent is the separate property of Narayanan Kesavan, having been acquired by him along with other properties under Ext. C sale deed dated 5-9-1066. The property comprised in Ext. C is 26 parahs 3 edangazhies of paddy land. Narayanan Kesavan executed Ext. E mortgage dated 26121068 and Ext. F purakadam dated 19 71084 in respect of the property comprised in Ext. C in favour of Narayanan Unni. Narayanan Unni assigned the mortgage right over the plaint item after receiving the proportionate mortgage money to Narayanan Krishnan under Ext. III dated 7 81084. The mortgage right of Narayanan Krishnan devolved on defendants 1 and 2. An assignee of the mortgage from Narayanan Krishnan had executed a sub-mortgage which right devolved on the first plaintiff who is the husband of the second plaintiff Defendants 1 and 2 filed O. S.441 of 1118 to redeem the sub mortgage and recover possession of the property from the first plaintiff. The suit was decreed and defendants 1 and 2 got delivery of the plaint item under the delivery kychit Ext. AM pending the present suit. In 1101, Narayanan Kesavan executed Ext. G in favour of his sons and some of his nephews. The plaint property was given to Raman Nair and Padmanabhan Nair. On the death of Padmanabhan Nair, his heirs and Raman Nair executed Ext. C gift deed giving the plaint property to the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff conveyed his rights to the other plaintiffs who filed the suit for redemption.

3. The first defendant contended that the plaint property is not the separate property of Narayanan Kesavan, the properties acquired under Ext. C were acquired by him when he was the karanavan of the sub-tarwad of the defendants with sub-tarwad funds and Narayanan Kesavan was therefore not competent to execute Ext. G, and the plaintiffs have no title to redeem.

4. The trial court found that Ext. C properties were acquired by Narayanan Kesavan when he was the karnavan of the sub tarwad of the defendants and the properties comprised in Ext. C including the plaint item are the sub-tarwad properties of the defendants and the plaintiffs have no title based on Ext. G to redeem the mortgage, and that the suit was barred by res judicata on account of Ext. VI the decision in O. S. No. III of 1099 on the file of the District Court of Quilon. But the appellate judge decreed the suit reversing the findings of the learned Munsiff. The appellate court was of the view that Ext. C properties were the separate properties of Narayanan Kesavan and he is therefore competent to execute Ext. G regarding these properties, and that the suit is not barred by res judicata on account of Ext. VI decision in O. S. No. III of 1099.

5. The finding of the appellate judge that the properties acquired under Ext. C were the separate properties of Narayanan Kesavan, was based on two grounds. The first ground mentioned by the learned judge was that there is no reliable evidence to show that on the date of Ext. C surplus tarwad funds were available with Narayanan Kesavan by reason of his management of the tarwad during the 11 months after the date of Ext. D. The second ground mentioned by the learned judge was based on the subsequent conduct of Narayanan Kesavan and some members of the tarwad evidenced by some registered documents and also judgments of courts. I am satisfied that the approach made by the subordinate judge in deciding the question whether the properties in Ext. C are sub-tarwad properties or the separate properties of Narayanan Kesavan is wrong and the learned judge has to be directed to reconsider the matter. The acquisition of properties under Ext. C was subsequent to the partition deed Ext. D. It is seen and it is also admitted that un