The main legal point established is the presumption of property acquired in the name of a coparcener being made with the help of joint family income, unless proven otherwise, and the burden of proof on parties claiming separate property.

This appeal is directed against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 07.02.1997 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, North Arcot District (now Vellore District) in O.S.No.243 of 1991. The respondents 1 and 2 in the present appeal were the plaintiffs. The appellant herein was the first defendant and the third respondent herein was the second defendant in the original suit.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the above said suit for partition in respect of the suit properties, both movable and immovable, described in the schedule attached to the plaint as items 1 to 17. Items 1 to 14 are immovable properties whereas items 15 to 17 are cattles. According to the plaint allegations, all the suit properties were the ancestral properties of one Chinnappa Moopar who died intestate in or about 1982. He and his son Shanmugam Moopar were coparceners entitled to equal moieties in the suit properties. On the death of Chinnappa Moopar, his half share devolved upon his son Shanmugam Moopar, daughters Kasiammal and Kanagammal (the plaintiffs in the suit) and his wife Chinnakannammal equally. As such, each one of the plaintiffs and the said Chinnakannammal became entitled to 1/8 share. In all Shanmugam Moopar was entitled to 5/8 share (½ share as coparcener and 1/8 as the legal heir of Chinnappa Moopar). The above said Shanmugam Moopar predeceased Chinnakannammal. On his death, his wife Saradammal and mother Chinnakannammal became entitled to his property in equal moieties. As such, the 5/8 share of Shanmugam Moopar was to be shared equally between Chinnakannammal and Saradambal. Each one of them got 5/16 share in the suit properties as a legal heir of Shanmugam Moopar. In all Chinnakannammal W/o.Chinnappa Moopar became entitled to 7/16 share. On her death in 1990, the same devolved upon her daughters Kasiammal and Kanagammal, the plaintiffs. Thus each one of the plaintiffs, in all, became entitled to 11/32 share in the suit properties. The remaining 10/32 share would go to the first defendant Saradambal. As an extent of 48. 0 hectares comprised in Survey No.66/5 and an extent of 0.06.0 hectares comprised in Survey No.66/6 described as items 3 and 4 in the plaint schedule were purchased by the second defendant Neelakanda Moopar from the first defendant without the consent of the plaintiffs in and by a sale deed dated 04.03.1991, there arose a necessity for the plaintiffs to claim partition. As the defendants were not prepared for a peaceful partition without the intervention of the court, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for the reliefs of partition, separate possession and mesne profits.

3. The plaintiffs had made a further averment in the plaint to the effect that Shanmugam Moopar did not acquire any property in his name; that he had no independent source of income to acquire any property and that if at all any property had been acquired in his name, the same would have been acquired out of the joint family income alone and hence the same should be treated as the properties available for partition.

4. The suit was resisted by the appellant/first defendant by filing a written statement containing the following averments, besides denial of the plaint averments: Chinnappa Moopar and his brothers were jointly enjoying the properties belonging to their family for sometime and later on they effected a partition among themselves. The properties which came to the share of Chinnappa Moopar were in the joint enjoyment of Chinnappa Moopar and his son Shanmugam Moopar. The properties described as items 1 and 2 in the plaint schedule were the properties purchased by Shanumgam Moopar out of his own personal earnings even during the life time of his father Chinnappa Moopar. They were purchased from one Manickammal and Samikannu on 01.03.1971. Hence the said properties, by no stretch of imagination could be termed as acquisitions made with the help of the joint family income. Similarly, the property descri