Person making plea that property was self acquired, onus lies to prove on him.

The defendants are the appellants in this second appeal arising out of a suit for partition. In this second appeal, this Court is concerned only with items 1 and 8 of the suit properties.

2. With reference to item No.1, as against the claim of the defendants that the plaintiffs’ suit was barred since Ex.A-6=(Ex.B-1) mortgage dated 211. 1089 ME (=211. 1914 A.D) in favour of the 1st defendant’s mother was not redeemed at all, the trial Court has held that suit item No.1 was not the subject matter of Ex.A-6 at all and has granted decree for half share therein to the plaintiffs. No doubt, the lower appellate Court did hot meet this finding of the trial court by any discussion, but it held that Ex.A-6 mortgage did not take effect and that, therefore, the defendants are not entitled to any right under the said mortgage. Thus holding, the lower appellate court concurred with the trial court with reference to item 1 and granted decree to the plaintiffs for the abovesaid half share therein.

3. Initially, the learned counsel for the appellants drew my attention to paragraph 9 of the lower appellate court’s judgment and sought to contend that the lower appellate court also has dealt with the question whether the suit item 1 is the subject matter of Ex.A-6 mortgage. In the said paragraph 9, it is stated that Ex.B-10, another later mortgage executed by the 1st defendant in favour of his son Esakki refers to Ex.B-1 and that direction was given in Ex.B-10 for redeeming Ex.B-1. But the learned counsel for the respondents took me through Ex.B.10 and pointed out that Ex.B-10 has nothing to do with Ex.B-1 or suit item No.1, which is in S.No.2425. Ex.B-10 refers to other survey numbers, but not the abovesaid S.No.2425. Therefore, I also agree that the lower appellate court has factually erred in this regard. The net result is, the lower appellate court has not expressly referred to the finding of the trial court that Ex.B-1 does not relate to the suit item No.1 at all. The trial court also has given various reasons in paragraph 12 of its judgment for coming to the said conclusion and the learned counsel for the appellants also could not assail the said finding. It is also clear that Ex.B-1 does not relate to the suit property. Therefore, the defendants cannot claim exclusive right in item No.1 and hence, the decree that has been passed in favour of the plaintiffs by both the Courts below with reference to item No.1 cannot be disturbed.

4. With reference to item No.8, the trial court granted l/4th share to the plaintiffs and 3/4th share to the 1st defendant. But, the lower appellate court granted each half share. Now, the defendants-appellants claim that the judgment of the trial court should be restored. This controversy can be understood if the genealogy of the parties is make known. The original ancestor senior Aundi had two sons, viz., junior Aundi and Suppandi and the plaintiffs are paternal grandsons of junior Aundi The 1st defendant is the son of the abovesaid Suppandi. Item No.8 stands in the name of senior Aundi and Suppandi, it having been purchased by both of them in about the year 1902. According to the trial court, it is not the joint family property of the family of senior Aundi, but separate property of both senior Aundi and Suppandi, each having half share therein. To come to this conclusion, the trial court relied on the document relating to the earlier settlement proceeding that took place with reference to the said property. The trial court observes that the said property. The trial court observes that the said document Ex.B-6 shows that all the three persons, viz., senior Aundi, Suppandi and junior Aundi had categorically admitted that this item was purchased by senior Aundi and Suppandi. The said purchase is borne out by Ex.B-8. So, according to the trial court, the first defendant, the son of Suppandi would get half share of his father Suppandi and another l/4th share from senior Aundi out of the remaining half sh