The main legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof in establishing joint family property, the presumption of joint family property, and the power of the manager of joint family property.

Second Appeal arises out of judgment in A.S.No.40 of 2001 reversing judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.551 of 1991 and thereby passing a preliminary decree for partition. Unsuccessful second defendant is the appellant. For convenience, parties are referred to in their original rank in the suit.

.2. Ellappa Chowdary was the only son of Vannappa Chowdary. Plaintiff, defendants 1 to 3, 5 and 6 are sons and daughters of Ellappa Chowdary. After life time of Vannappa Chowdary, Ellappa Chowdary inherited suit A and B schedule properties from his father.

3. Case of plaintiff is that properties set out in schedule A, B and D properties mentioned in the plaint belonged to their grand father Vannappa Chowdary, who died intestate and all properties devolved upon his only son Ellappa Chowdary. Further case of plaintiff is that during life time of their father Ellappa Chowdary, after meeting expenses of family, he was having surplus income from A and B schedule properties. Out of the amount saved, their father Ellappa Chowdary purchased C schedule property and C schedule property becomes joint Hindu Family Property and the plaintiff is entitled for his share in plaint A, C and D schedule properties. To that effect, plaintiff had also issued a legal notice Ex.A4 (17. 1979) demanding partition and father Ellappa Chowdary sent a reply Ex.A7 (25.07.1979) alleging that ancestral properties were sold to third parties for discharging debts. Hence plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.551 of 1991 for partition.

4. Second defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by defendants 3, 4 and 6. In their written statement, defendants alleged that their father Ellappa Chowdary executed Ex.B5 Will (011. 1981) and allotted 0.94 acres in S.No.175/1 (A schedule property) to the plaintiff and hence question of partition does not arise as far as A schedule property is concerned. Defendants further averred that in Ex.B5 Will, father Ellappa Chowdary allotted share in D schedule property-house property in favour of plaintiff and hence plaintiff is not entitled for partition in D schedule property also. Insofar as C schedule property is concerned, second defendant stated that C schedule property was acquired by father Ellappa Chowdary out of his own earnings and hence it became the self acquired property of their father Ellappa Chowdary and that he could deal with this property on his own. It was further averred that C schedule property (except Item Nos.2 and 7) was settled in favour of defendants under Exs.B2 to B4 settlement deeds (012. 1977) and therefore plaintiff is not entitled to claim partition.

.5. On the above pleadings, in the trial Court 16 issues were framed. To substantiate plaintiffs claim, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, his brother-in-law as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A8. On the side of defendants, Exs.B1 to B17 were marked and .D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court held that under Ex.B5 Will (011. 1981), Ellappa Chowdary allotted 0.94 acres in A schedule property to the plaintiff. Insofar as B schedule property is concerned, trial Court held that it was sold by Ellappa Chowdary during his life time to meet family expenses and discharge debts and hence B schedule property was not available for partition. Insofar as C schedule property is concerned, trial Court held that plaintiff has not produced documents to show that Ellappa Chowdary had surplus income to purchase C schedule property. It was further held that C schedule property was self acquired property of Ellappa Chowdary and therefore plaintiff has no right to claim partition in C schedule property. Trial Court mainly pointed out that Exs.B2 to B4 settlement deeds were executed as early as in 1977, ten years prior to filing of suits and one of the beneficiaries having settled his share in the year 1985, plaintiff has no right to claim partition. Insofar as D schedule property also, trial Court held that plain