Onus of proof placed on the manager.

Thangamani, J.

Appellants K.V.Duraisamy and Pemmakkal in A.S.No.815 of 1981 are brother and sister. The first item of the subject matter of the appeal is the land measuring 5.70 acres in Survey No.68 of Pasur village. This land was purchased jointly by their mother Gengemmal and Pemmakkal under Ex.B-1 the sale deed dated 111. 1957. In the family partition between-first appellant Duraisamy and his brother Rangasamy under Ex.B-3 dated 210. 1966 a moiety of this land was allotted to the share of the first appellant. The remaining half was settled in his favour by sister Pemmakkal under Ex.B-4 dated 210. 1966. Respondents who are the minor sons of first appellant Duraisamy represented by their mother Rukkammal instituted O.S.No.98 of 1977 on the file of learned Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore for partition and separate possession of their 2/ 3rd shares in this item as well as items 2 and 3 described in the plaint. While the third item is movables, the second item comprises of an extent of 5.88, 2 acres in Survey Nos.72/1,4 and 5. These lands were purchased by the first appellant under Ex.B-31, dated 2a4.1974, Ex.B-32, dated 21. 1974, Ex.B-33, dated 3. 1971 and Ex.B-34, dated 16. 1970. It is the case of the respondents that these lands partake the character of the joint family properties as they were purchased from out of the income of the ancestral lands. And their father who is given to an immoral and wayward life, in order to defeat the rights of the respondents and their mother, had executed Ex.B-51 sale deed dated 11. 1977 in the name of his sister the second appellant with false and make-believe recitals. And this sale deed executed neither for necessity nor for family benefit is invalid and they are entitled to ignore the same.

2.. Subsequent to the institution of the suit, Rukkammal, wife of the first appellant filed O.S.No.249 of 1977 in the court of District Munsif of Tirupur and numbered as O.S.No.1138 of 1978 on the file of Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore against the appellants for directing the first appellant to pay her past maintenance of Rs.600 and future maintenance at rate of Rs.300 per month from the date of suit and for creating a charge over the suit property for the due payment of the maintenance amount. Second appellant Pemmakkal filed O.S.No.117 of 1977 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore seeking permanent injunction restraining Rukkammal and five of her close relatives from interfering with her enjoyment of the suit properties on the allegation that on account of B-51 sale deed dated 11. 1977 in her favour, her possession was sought to be disturbed.

3. The first appellant resisted these actions contending that he got only an extent of 2.85 acres in Survey No.68 of Pasur village under Ex.B-3 partition deed dated 210. 1966. It was a dry. land yielding practically no income. He borrowed and sunk a new well. But he was not able to raise any garden crop in the said land since there was no water in the well. As there was no water, the motor and pumpest purchased by him were also disposed of in or about 1973. A moiety of the first item was given to him by his sister the second appellant out of love and affection under Ex.B-4 settlement deed of love and affection under Ex.B-4 settlement deed dated 210. 1966. This is his separate property in which his sons cannot claim any right. At no time there was any income from the property got by the first appellant under Ex.B-3 partition deed. The properties covered by Exs.B-31 to B-34 described as item 2 were purchased by the first appellant from out of the earnings in his arecanut business. Ex.B-51 sale deed in favour of the second appellant is a genuine document executed for valid consideration. He was constrained to sell the second item of property in order to discharge the debts binding on the respondents also. He further contended that though he agreed to pay maintenance to his wife in a Panchayat, he never refused to pay the money as alleged