JUDGMENT.-The plaintiff in O.S.No. 36 of 1968 in the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chidambaram, is the appellant herein. The suit was instituted by him for partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit properties which consist of five items and for recovery of his share of income from items 4 and 5 of the plaint A schedule properties. Since the plaintiff has been granted a decree in respect of items 2 to 5, the appeal is confined only to item 1, a residentital house in Vridachalam. There were two brothers, Krishnaswami Iyer and Kuppuswami Iyer. Krishnaswami Iyer, in his turn, had two sons, the appellant herein and one Dandapani Iyer, who died on 18th October, 1963 whose widow is the first respondent, whose sons are respondents 3 and 6, whose daughters are respondents, 3, 4, 5 and 7 and whose grandson through a predeceased daughter is the eighth respondent. Respondents 9 and 10 are strangers claiming some interest in the property. As far as item 1 of the A schedule property is concerned, the case of the plaintiff was that Dandapani Iyer and Krishnaswami Iyer constituted a joint family, that under the original of Exhibit A-4, dated 15th May, 1963 certain lands belonging to the joint family were sold for Rs. 3,000 and out of the sale proceeds a house was purchased under Exhibit B-1, dated 20th June, 1963 for a consideration of Rs. 1,600 and that consequently the plaintiff (appellant) representing Krishnaswami Iyer’s branch was entitled to a half share in the property. Certain other facts have to be set out with reference to this claim of the appellant. The original of Exhibit A-4, dated 15th May, 1963 was executed by Dandapani Iyer himself and his two sons, Ganesan and Krishnamurthi as well as by the appellant in favour of one Pachamuthu Odayar. On the date of the document Dandapani Iyer received Rs. 200 by way of advance. The document itself was registered only on 17th June, 1963. The case of the appellant was that the balance of the consideration for the sale deed under Exhibit A-4, viz., Rs. 2,800 was received only on 19th June, 1963, i.e. even after the registration of Exhibit A-4 itself. The next day the suit item was purchased under Exhibit B-1, dated 20th June, 1963 after paying Rs. 1,600 to Rathnasabapathi Pillai, the vendor. Rathnasabapathi Pillai is no-other than the son of one Rangasami Pillai, an Advocate under whom Dandapani Iyer was working as a clerk. It is on the basis that the sale proceeds under Exhibit A-4 were utilised for the purchase of the property under Exhibit B-1, that the appellant claimed a half share in the suit property.

2. This claim was resisted by defendants 1 to 8 putting forward the contention that the property under Exhibit B-1 was not purchased out of the sale proceeds under Exhibit A-4 but from separate moneys belonging to Dandapani Iyer and his wife as well as Dandapani Iyer’s son, who was working. It must be pointed out that the sale deed, Exhibit B-1, itself stands only in the name of Dandapani Iyer, and the sale deed has been attested by the appellant himself. Having regard to the fact that the sale deed stands in the name of Dandapani Iyer, the burden was on the appellant to prove that, notwithstanding the sale deed standing in the name of Dandapani Iyer, the property was purchased for the benefit of both the brothers, viz., Dandapani Iyer and the appellant herein. In support of this case, the only witness who has given evidence is the appellant himself, as P.W. 1. Having gone through the entire evidence of the appellant, I am clearly of the opinion that the appellant has not discharged the burden of proving that the property purchased under Exhibit B-1 was for the benefit of both Dandapani Iyer and the appellant, and not for the exclusive benefit of Dandapani Iyer. There are certain circumstances which are clinching in this behalf. The first is that the appellant has stated in his evidence that the balance of consideration for the sale of the property un

Click Here to Read the rest of this document