The main legal point established is the principle of ownership of self-acquired properties and the burden of proof on the plaintiff to establish entitlement to a share in such properties.

JUDGMENT

1. These appeals are directed against the judgments and decree dated 8.2.2013 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Mandalgarh, Bhilwara and 11.10.2013 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Bhilwara, whereby, the suits for partition filed by the plaintiff - appellant have been rejected and the appeals filed therefrom have also been rejected.

2. The suits were filed by the plaintiff - Smt. Lali against Kanhaiya Lal - brother and Smt. Jhamku - sister-in-law (in Civil Original Suit No.8/2010) and against Kanhaiya Lal - brother, Rajmal and Jeetmal - the two purchasers (in Civil Original Suit No.9/2010) seeking partition of the properties.

3. It was inter alia claimed that the suit properties were owned by Late Sh. Dunga - father of plaintiff - Lali and defendant -Kanhaiya Lal and that the defendant got issued the pattas from the Gram Panchayat in his name and that of his wife and, therefore, the partition by metes and bounds was sought qua half of the properties.

4. The suits were contested by Kanhaiya Lal inter alia claiming that the suit properties were purchased by him by getting issued pattas from the Gram Panchayat by making payment and as such the properties were his / his wife's self-acquired properties and the plaintiff had no share in the suits properties.

5. Based on the averments of the parties, the trial court framed several issues and after evidence was led by the parties, came to the conclusion that the suit properties were self-acquired properties of Kanhaiya Lal / his wife and as such the plaintiff had no share in the said properties and consequently, rejected the suits.

6. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed first appeals.

7. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the parties, reiterated the findings recorded by the trial court and dismissed the first appeals.

8. Feeling aggrieved, the present second appeals have been filed.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant attempted to make submissions that the findings recorded by the two courts below in both the suits were perverse. Reference was made to the statement of Kanhaiya Lal to indicate that he had admitted presence of joint properties owned by Late Sh. Dunga - their father and as such, it is apparent that the properties, which have been purchased by him in his name, in fact belongs to the joint family and, therefore, the plaintiff had share in those properties and, therefore, the said aspect gave rise to substantial questions of law.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents - defendants contested the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. It was submitted that merely because some joint property exists, cannot be a reason for claiming that the all the properties, which are purchased by the defendants even from their own sources, would be joint and the plaintiff - sister would have share in those properties as well and, therefore, the two courts below were justified in rejecting the claim of the appellant and the present second appeals also deserve to be dismissed.

11. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

12. The two courts below after scrutinizing the evidence, which came on record, recorded categorical finding that on the one hand the plaintiff failed to prove that the suits properties i.e. properties qua which pattas were issued by the Gram Panchayat in the name of Kanhaiya Lal and his wife, part whereof was transferred by the Kanhaiya Lal to other defendants, were joint family properties or bought from joint family fund, on the other hand as the pattas were issued by the Gram Panchayat in the name of defendants long back, it was found that the same were owned individually by the patta holders and consequently, the claim made by the plaintiff was denied.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant despite taking the Court through the evidence recorded by the two courts below, failed to point out any perversity in the findings of fact recorded by the two courts be