The burden of proof for joint family property lies with the claimant, and evidence of possession and enjoyment is crucial in property disputes.

The plaintiff filed O.S.No.335 of 1990 seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the Government poramboke land measuring 12 cents in his possession. The other suit in O.S.No.114 of 1998 was filed by the plaintiff praying for recovery of possession of A schedule property and for permanent injunction with respect to B schedule property or in the alternative for recovery of possession of B schedule property.

2. As the parties in both the appeals are one and the same and the suit properties are also found to be contiguous both the appeals are taken up for common disposal.

3. The plaintiff has contended in O.S.No.114 of 1998 that there was a partition in the family in the year 1970. With the funds provided by his father-in-law, the plaintiff purchased the property described in O.S.No.114 of 1998 on 212. 1960. Only on permission granted by the plaintiff, the defendant, who is the only brother of the plaintiff, put up a small hut in the A schedule property and has been residing over there. The earlier litigation initiated by the defendant in O.S.No.306 of 1990 on the file of the court of the District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai ultimately ended in favour of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiffs father entered into an agreement of sale with one Ramu for purchasing the suit property, he died even before clinching the sale transaction. As there was no joint family funds for purchasing the suit property, the plaintiff, having mobilised fund from his father-in-law, purchased the same. As the suit property is self-acquired property of the plaintiff, the said property did not form part of the partition that took place in the year 1970 in the family. Having thus alleged, the plaintiff sought for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. In the written statement filed by the defendant in O.S.No.114 of 1998, it is contended that there was a family arrangement only with respect to the property situate at Manalmedu. There was no partition with respect to all the suit properties. The plaintiff being the eldest member of the family, took control of the family affairs and purchased the suit property after the demise of his father, who already entered into an agreement of sale during his lifetime. The defendant controverted the allegation of the plaintiff that he gave permission to the defendant to put up a house in A schedule property. The defendant is enjoying the entire suit property alongwith the adjoining poramboke lands. Though the plea for permanent injunction with respect to the suit property raised by the defendant in O.S.No.306 of 1990 was rejected by the appellate court in A.S.No.37 of 1996 on the file of the Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai, there is no clear finding that the suit properties are the joint family properties. As A and B schedule properties are joint family properties, the plaintiff is not the exclusive owner of the same. The finding rendered in A.S.No.37 of 1996 will operate as res judicata in respect of the contention raised by the plaintiff in the present suit. Therefore, the defendant has sought for dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.114 of 1998.

5. The plaintiff in O.S.No.335 of 1990 would contend that the suit property is a Government poramboke land. It is a coconut thope. Regularising possession of the property, the Government issued 2C patta. The entire poramboke land is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The defendant does not have any right over the property nor has he been in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff, having alleged that the defendant is making an attempt to encroach upon the suit property taking advantage of the enjoyment of the contiguous property owned by the plaintiff, sought for permanent injunction.

6. In the written statement, the defendant has contended that the plaintiff, taking advantage of his management of the joint family property, obtained 2C patta in his name and paid taxes. The coconut trees were raised by the