The burden of proof lies on the manager of a Hindu joint family to establish the self-acquired nature of properties, and blending self-acquired property with joint family property results in all properties becoming joint family property.

(Second appeal under Section 100 CPC against the decree and judgment 28.07.1995 made in A.S. No. 61 of 1994 on the file of Additional Special Judge, Krishnagiri confirming the decree and judgment dated 10.02.1993 made in O.S. No. 468 of 1979 on the file of District Munsif, Hosur.)

The first defendant in O.S. No. 468 of 1979 before the District Munsif Court, Hosur is the appellant in this second appeal. The said suit was filed by the deceased Ramaiah for partition of the suit properties. During the pendency of the suit, the said Ramaiah died and the plaintiffs 2 to 4/respondents 1 to 3 herein were impleaded as his legal heirs.

2. The trial court decreed the suit thereby allotted 8/28 shares in favour of the first plaintiff and directed the first defendant to put the plaintiffs in possession of the suit properties. On appeal, the first appellate Court confirmed the decree and judgment of the trial court and dismissed the first appeal, hence the present second appeal has been filed.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as they were arrayed before the trial court.

4. The suit properties were originally acquired by Chinnamunusamy through a oral sale from his brother Patha Munusamy. The said Chinnamunusamy died in the year 1975. The first Plaintiff, defendants 1 and 2 are sons, third defendant is the wife and defendants 4 to 6 are the daughters of the said Chinnamunusamy. There are six items of property shown in the schedule of the plaint, among them, the properties shown in item Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 were ancestral properties and item Nos. 4 and 6 were acquired out of the joint family funds for the benefit of the joint family. Though the first plaintiff was the eldest member in the family, he was mentally imbalanced and therefore the first defendant has taken care of the joint family properties. The plaintiffs and defendants were living as a joint family, due to a dispute among the women family members, it was decided to have a separate mess and accordingly the plaintiffs lived in a separate portion of a house and the defendants 1 and 2 lived in the other portion. The first plaintiff sought for partition of the properties, which was refused by the first defendant. A Panchayat took place in the presence of the elders but the first defendant refused to effect partition of the properties. According to the plaintiffs, the first defendant, in order to deprive the legitimate share of the plaintiffs is attempting to defraud them. The first plaintiff is entitled to 8/28 share in the suit property, hence the suit was filed praying for a preliminary decree of partition.

5. The defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit by stating that the suit is not maintainable. The Plaintiffs are fully aware that a partition had already taken place in 1956 and there was a disruption of the joint family status even then. During the life time of Chinnamunusamy, a partition muchalika was entered into on 25.02.1974 by which certain properties were allotted to the first plaintiff and his family. The allegation that item Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 were ancestral properties is false. The defendant never taken care of the management of the properties as alleged. The suit properties are the exclusive properties of the first and second defendants and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

6. Before the trial Court, the plaintiffs have not marked any documents, but examined the second plaintiff, Ramappa and Seetharamaiah as PWs 1 to 3. On the side of the defendants, Exs. B1 to B3 were marked and first defendant, second defendant, P.R. Krishnamoorthy and Jamvandhan @ Venkatesappa were examined as DWs 1 to 4 respectively.

7. The trial court, after careful consideration of the oral evidence let in by the plaintiffs and the defendants found that though the defendants have stated that even during 1956 a partition was done in which certain properties were allegedly given to the plaintiffs, DW1 in his evidence was unable t