Burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove that suit property is joint family property.

This appeal is against the judgment and decree of the learned III additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, in A. S. No. 117 of 1991, dated 18-3-1993, reversing the judgment and decree of the XII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, dated 22-2-1990 in O. S. No. 5149 of 1983.

2. Defendants 2 and 8 are the appellants. The eighth defendant is the wife of the second defendant.

3. The first respondent filed the suit for declaration that the properties in Schedules A to D are joint family properties of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 and the business mentioned in E to H Schedules belongs to the family and for partition and separate possession of 1/7th share to the plaintiff in them.

4. According to the first respondent/plaintiff, plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7 are sons and daughters of the deceased K. S. Ramachandra Rao. The first defendant is the mother. Ramachandra Rao came to Madras in the year 1920 and started a business in the year 1927 at No. 184 (Old No. 272), NSC Bose Road, Madras-1, mentioned in the E Schedule. In the year 1945 he started the business in crackers. In the year 1955, he obtained licence for the said business in the name of the second defendant. In the year 1955 he converted the business as partnership business with the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3, under the name and style of "K. S. Ramachandra Rao and Sons". It was a joint family business. He purchased the lands mentioned in 'A' schedule and 'B' schedule property in the name of the second defendant. He purchased the 'C' schedule lands in the name of the second defendant from the joint family business income. K. S. Ramachandra Rao was also doing Pawn Broker business and Chit business. After the death of the father in the year 1971, the second defendant continued the joint family business as its manager. He continued the business mentioned in 'E' schedule. In the year 1978, the second defendant started stationery business under the name and style of "Sathya Agencies". That business is also a joint family business. The same is mentioned in 'G' schedule. In the year 1974, the second defendant started a Lottery business in the name of his wife, the eighth defendant and that is also a joint family business. It is shown in the 'H' schedule. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled to 1/7th share in all the properties and business mentioned in the Schedules 'A' to 'H'.

5. Defendants 1, 3 to 7 remained ex parte. The second defendant filed the written statement, which was adopted by the eighth defendant. According to them, there was no joint family. K. S. Ramachandra Rao started his individual business. The defendants were living with him as members of his family. 'F' schedule mentioned business is the exclusive business of the second defendant. 'E' schedule business was a partnership business. It was not a joint family business. 'A' schedule lands were purchased by Ramachandra Rao, in that the plaintiff and the second defendant have 1/7th share each. 'B' schedule house belongs to the second defendant. It is not a joint family property or purchased from the joint family business. Hence, the plaintiff has no share in it. 'C' schedule property is also the second defendant's exclusive property. Ramachandra Rao had no money lending business. The business at No. 184 NSC Bose Road, was Ramachandra Rao's business. 'D' schedule property is the exclusive proprety of the eighth defendant. The Lottery business was also the second defendant's business. There was no joint family of Ramachandra Rao.

6. In the Additional written statement, the second defendant has stated that after the death of the first defendant, the mother of the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7, he is also entitled to a right in her share.

7. The trial Court framed five issues and one additional issue. After considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, the trial Court found that in 'A' and 'E' schedule mentioned property and business alone the plaintiff was entitled for declaration of 1/7th