The burden of proof in establishing the nature of property acquisition lies on the plaintiff, and legal evidence is crucial in proving self-acquired properties.

The defendants in O.S.No.387/1988 and plaintiffs in O.S.No.382/1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Ramanathapuram are the appellants.

2. The case in brief for the disposal of both the appeals are as follows:

The plaintiff in O.S.No.387/1988 filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction relating to the suit property. The suit property originally belonged to one Subramanian Chettiar and the plaintiff purchased the same for a valid consideration under a registered document dated 24.6.1961. Patta was also transferred in the name of the plaintiff and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The defendants have no right whatsoever and they are attempting to interfere with the possession and enjoyment.

3. The first defendant filed a written statement denying the title of the plaintiff in respect of property. The plaintiff could have paid the kist to the capacity as a co-owner. The plaintiff is not in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff is only the eldest brother of the three and they have two brothers, namely, Muniyandi and Nagalingam. Muniyandi went to the Northern state sixteen or seventeen years back and his whereabouts are not known. D2 is the son of Muniyandi. Similarly, Nagalingam went to Tanjore and D1 is his son. Their mother Kalimuthammal also had properties in Nakachi village. They are in common enjoyment without any division. Out of the funds from joint family property only the suit property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff, he being the eldest son. The suit property was treated as a joint family property. The defendants already filed a suit for partition and the same is also pending.

4. The plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.382/1988 filed a suit for partition and separate possession of their 3/4th shares in the properties. These properties originally belonged to Kalimuthammal. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 as well as Muniyandi, father of plaintiffs 3 to 7 and D1 are her children. Kalimuthammal died twenty years back and the legal heirs commonly enjoyed the properties. In spite of repeated demands, D1 is not amenable for partition. Hence, the suit.

5. D1 filed a written statement and denied the various averments. Items 1 to 3 of the properties only belonged to Kalimuthammal. The relationship between the parties is admitted. There was already oral partition some thirty five years back even during the lifetime of the mother. No share was allotted to D1 in Item No.1 and it was allotted to plaintiffs 1 and 2 as well as Muniyandi. Item No.2 of the property was divided into four shares and there are also demarcating ridges. He denied that Item Nos.4 and 5 of the properties were purchased out of the joint family income. They were the self acquired properties of D1. Item No.5 of the property has been conveyed to the second defendant for a valid consideration and D2 had also put up a house and is living there for more than the statutory period. Similarly, second plaintiff has put up a house in a portion of Item No.1 and living separately. Muniammal wife of Muniyandi is also alive and she was not impleaded as a party. Hence, the suit is barred for mis joinder of necessary party also.

6. The second defendant filed a written statement and contended and the plaintiffs are not entitled to 3/4th shares in all the properties. Item No.5 of the properties belonged to D1 purchased under a registered document dated 18.6.1973. This property was purchased by D2 for a valid consideration under a registered document dated 4.10.1982. Ever since the date, D2 alone is in possession and enjoyment of the property. He had also put up a house and paying the tax.

7. The Trial Court framed five issues in O.S.No.382/1988 and three issues in O.S.No.387/1988, since the parties as well as the subject matter are one and the same, the evidence recorded in O.S.Nos.382/1988 was treated as evidence in the other suit. On behalf of the plaintiffs, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A43 were marked. On the side o