Plaintiff failed to prove the suit property as joint family property.

Plaintiff in O.S.No.1433 of 1980, on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, filed the Second Appeal. Subsequently he died, and his legal representatives, viz., appellants 2 to 7 have further prosecuted the second appeal.

2. Plaintiff filed the suit claiming half share in the plaint items which are described as B, C and D Schedules. A preliminary decree was passed only in respect of B Schedule. Regarding C and D Schedule items, the suit was dismissed. The matter was taken in appeal but without success. The concurrent judgments of both the courts below are challenged in this second appeal.

3. Plaintiff Kasthuri Naidu, first defendant’s father Narayanaswami Naidu and one Ramasami Naidu are the sons of one Sama Naidu. They constituted a Joint Hindu Family. Ramasami died issueless. His wife also pre-deceased him. That is why the plaintiff claims half share.

4. Under Ex.A-1, a settlement deed was executed by the uncle of Sama Naidu. He obtained the plaint B Schedule and Item No. 1 in C Schedule. Item No.2 of C schedule is a property purchased in a court auction sale dated 18. 1932, evidenced by Ex.A-2. The auction purchaser is late Narayanaswami, father of the first defendant. D schedule property was also purchased by Narayanaswami under Ex.A-7 in the year 1945. It is said that in that D Schedule property, Narayanaswami put up a construction in 1960. These Items are now claimed as family properties by the plaintiff.

5. First defendant contended that his father Narayanaswami was a businessman even from 1925. Even Sama Naidu did not have any family property of his own, and the only property he obtained was on the basis of settlement deed Ex.A-1. Plaintiff being the son of Sama Naidu, cannot consider those properties as family properties. It was further contended that Sama Naidu and Narayanaswami jointly executed a mortgage in respect of C Schedule Item No.1, C Schedule Item No.2, along with some other properties to P.W.2 in this case. They raised a loan of Rs. 1,000 on the security of those properties. Before the mortgage could be redeemed, Sama Naidu died and thereafter under Ex.A-4, Narayanaswami alone executed a document whereby the mortgagee was treated as owner of the property and the entire mortgage debt was also wiped out. There was a provision in Ex.A-4 that in case the amount covered by Ex. A-4 is paid within a period of three years to P.W.2, the property will be reconveyed. Within a period of three years, the amount could not be paid, and time was also being extended from time to time, and finally in the year 1945, P.W.2 reconveyed the C Schedule Items 1 and 2 and other properties back to Narayanaswami. The other property which was also the subject matter of reconveyance, was sold by Narayanaswami to a stranger. The reconveyance deed is Ex.A-5. It is, therefore, contended by the first defendant that none of the items can be treated as family properties over which the plaintiff can claim a share.

6. The trial court, after taking elaborate evidence, i.e., Ex.A-1 to A-23 on the side of the plaintiff and Ex. B-1 to B-213 on the side of the first defendant, came to the conclusion that except for B schedule Item, the plaintiff is not entitled to any right. The trial court also relied on the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and D. Ws. 1 to 4, for the said purpose. Aggrieved by the judgment, plaintiff preferred A.S.No.50 of 1982, on the file of District Judge, Coimbatore. The lower appellate court did not find any reason to differ from the findings entered by the trial court. The appeal was dismissed with costs. The concurrent judgments of both the courts below are assailed in this second appeal.

.7. The following substantial question of law was raised for consideration in this second appeal:

.“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding that the property is not the joint family property is sustainable in law?”

8. Plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that there was any family propert