The central legal point established in the judgment is the allocation of the burden of proof in partition suits, emphasizing the need for the plaintiff to establish joint family property and the defendants to prove independent acquisition.

ORDER :- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13-5-1982 passed by the trial Court by which the suit for partition and mesne profits filed by the plaintiff-appellant has been dismissed.

2. The dispute is in regard to plot No. O-1-B, measuring 1171 square yards at Hospital Road, C-Scheme, Jaipur. The defendant No. 2 in the suit, Har Lal Singh (since deceased) was father (hereinafter referred as defendant H). The defendant No. 1, Narendra Singh (hereinafter to be referred as defendant N) was elder son of defendant H. The plaintiff-appellant, Fateh Singh (hereinafter to be referred as plaintiff F) was the younger son of defendant H. It has been alleged that defendant H purchased the plot in dispute in the name of defendant N from his own income and raised the construction as per contribution from the joint family. Thus plaintiff F is also entitled for - share of the property in dispute as also share of the profit earned y defendant N from rent of the above property. Though defendant H supported the claim of his younger son plaintiff F, however, the elder son defendant N disputed the allegations made by the plaintiff F in his written statement. While giving details of his sources of income defendant N has further stated that the entire property in dispute was purchased by him from his own income and no contribution was ever made either by his father or the younger brother.

3. As per pleadings of the parties, five issues were framed as to whether property in dispute was a joint family property and plaintiff F has - share in the same? If the above issue is decided in favour of plaintiff F, whether he is entitled for partition and possession of his share ? An issue in regard to an agreement executed by plaintiff F in favour of defendant N on 14-12-1978 to show the declaration of plaintiff F not having any right whatsoever over the property in dispute had also been framed. Four witnesses were examined on behalf of plaintiff F whereas defendant N and defendant H examined only themselves on their behalf. Issue in regard to the Court-fee was not pressed. However, other relevant material issues were decided in favour of defendant N and the suit has been dismissed accordingly by the trial Court.

4. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for plaintiff F submitted that the property in dispute in fact was purchased by defendant H in the name of his elder son defendant N. It has been alleged that though it was a benami transaction, however, the entire money in purchasing the plot and construction of house was spent by defendant H from his own sources of income. While heavily relying on a letter dated 7-11-1963 (Exhibit-13) allegedly written by defendant N in favour of his father defendant H, Mr. Agarwal submitted that a valid inference should be drawn that the property belonged to defendant H. He has also submitted that even plaintiff F and his own source of income from business and trucks and money was pooled in to run the whole family including father, mother and two sons and their families. So far as execution of document dated 14-12-1978 (Exhibit-A-2) is concerned, it has been submitted that at the time of marriage of daughter of plaintiff F, he had to execute the agreement (Exhibit-A-2) under compelling circumstances. It has also been submitted that at a young age defendant N was not supposed to have sufficient money to purchase this plot and make constructions and statement of father defendant H cannot be disbelieved that he committed mistake in purchasing the plot in the name of his elder son defendant N.

5. Mr. B. L. Mandhana, learned counsel for defendant N, while supporting the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, has submitted that the entire matter has to be considered and decided on the basis of pleadings. All legal documents in regard to the plot in question are in the name of defendant N. Benami transaction by father defendant H in the name of elder son has neither been pleaded nor proved. The entire