The burden of proof in establishing joint family property, the presumption of joint family in Hindu law, and the requirement of evidence to show joint family nucleus and income are central legal principles established in the judgment.

1. These appeals are focused as against the judgment and decree dated passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Salem in O.S.No.873 of 1984 dated 25.06.1992, which is one for partition. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

2. The portrayal and parodying of the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint, quintessentially and briefly could be set out thus:

The plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of the couple D1 and D2. The first item of the suit properties was obtained by D1 from his co-sharer in an oral partition. From out of the income derived from the joint family nucleus, the other items of the properties, viz., item Nos.2 and 3 were acquired by the co-parcenery of D1 and his four sons. It so happened that the third item of the suit properties was purchased in the name of D4 from out of the income generated from the joint family nucleus. While so, D4 sold the third item of the suit properties in favour of D6 Corporation viz., Salem Textile Corporation represented by D5, the Managing Director. Accordingly, the plaintiffs prayed for partition and allotment of their 1/5th share each in all the items of the suit properties in favour of them.

3. D1 filed the written statement, which was adopted by D2, in support of the case of the plaintiffs and further supplemented by pointing out that the defendants 3 and 4 had fallen a prey to D5s trick and D4 sold the third item of the suit properties taking undue advantage of the fact that the property stood in D4s name, even though it was purchased from out of the joint family funds. Accordingly, he prayed for decreeing the suit as prayed for by the plaintiffs.

4. D3 and D4 remained exparte.

5. Remonstrating and refuting, challenging and gain saying, the allegations/averments in the plaint, D5 filed the written statement, the gist and kernel of it would run thus:

The third item of the suit properties was not purchased by D4 from out of the income derived from the joint family nucleus as alleged in the plaint but, it happened to be the exclusive property of D4, who validly executed the sale deed in favour of D6 represented by D5. In fact, D1 and D3 attested the sale deed. Earlier one, Periasami Naicker claiming to be the owner of the third item of the suit properties filed the suit in O.S.No.181 of 1980 before the District Munsif Court, Athur as against D4 and D4s predecessor-in-title for declaration and injunction, which was dismissed. Subsequently, D4, D5 and D6 filed the suit in O.S.No.55 of 1980 as against the said Periasami for injunction. The sale executed by D4 in favour of D6 was for a valid consideration of Rs.41,000/- and after such purchase, D5 and D6 had put up a pucca factory building by investing huge amount.

Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit with regard to the third item of the suit properties.

6. D6 filed the written statement separately on the same line as that of the written statement filed by D5.

7. The trial Court framed the relevant issues. During trial, the second plaintiff examined himself as PW1 along with PW2 and Exs.A1 to A21 were marked and no one was examined on the side of the defendants and no document was also marked. Exs.C1 and C2 were marked as Court documents.

8. The trial Court ultimately decreed the suit in respect of item Nos.2 and 3 of the suit properties by observing that during final decree proceedings, the shares of D3 and D4 might be adjusted to the extent possible on equity basis towards the third item of the suit properties and the same shall be allotted to D6. Regarding item No.1, in clause (3) of the decree, the trial Court observed that the plaintiffs are entitled to 2/5th share at the rate of 1/5th share each in the first item of the suit properties and the same could be allotted only after the impleadment of D1s brother during final decree proceedings.

9. Being aggrieved by and dissatis