The burden of proof regarding joint family properties and self-acquired properties, and the legal presumption that ancestral properties provided the nucleus for the purchase of properties.

1. The defendants are the appellants herein. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit for partition of 3/8 share in the suit property.

2. The case of the respondents/plaintiffs was that the first appellant is their paternal grandfather and the second appellant is their paternal grandmother and the third appellant is their father. The suit properties are the joint family properties in the hands of the first appellant. As the third appellant, being the father of the respondents/plaintiffs, neglected to maintain them and was leading a wayward life, the mother of the respondents/plaintiffs, is living separately and as the properties are joint family properties, they are also entitled to a share in the properties. Hence, the suit was filed for partition of their 3/8 share in the suit property. It was further stated that the suit properties are purchased out of the income from the joint family properties in the name of the appellants/defendants 1 and 2 and therefore, the suit properties are the ancestral properties in which the respondents/plaintiffs have got their right by birth. Hence, they are entitled to claim their share in the suit properties.

3. The appellants/defendants contested the suit denying the allegations made against the third appellant and further contended that the properties are not joint family properties and they were not purchased out of the joint family nucleus and they are the separate properties of the appellants/defendants. Therefore, the respondents/plaintiffs cannot claim any share in the properties by birth

4. The Trial Court, dismissed the suit holding that no evidence was let in by the respondents/plaintiffs about the ancestral properties that was lying in the hands of the first appellant and no evidence was let in prove the income from the ancestral nucleus and in the absence of any such evidence, adduced by the respondents/plaintiffs, it cannot be stated that the suit properties are purchased out of the income from the joint family properties. Further, the suit properties are purchased in the year 1983, as evidenced by Exs.A1 and A2 whereas, the joint family properties were sold only in the year 1984, as evidenced by Ex.B1. Therefore, it cannot be stated that out of the sale proceeds of the joint family properties, the suit properties are purchased and as the respondents/plaintiffs failed to prove that the joint family was having sufficient ancestral properties, which provided the consideration for purchase of the suit properties, they are not entitled to the relief of partition.

5. The Lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal, holding that, admittedly, the joint family possessed of ancestral properties and D.W.1 viz., the first appellant also admitted in evidence that the suit properties were purchased from the income of the ancestral properties. Therefore, having regard to the admission of the first appellant and also having regard to the fact that the ancestral properties was having nucleus, it can be presumed that the ancestral properties provided consideration for the purchase of the suit properties. Hence, the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to a share in the suit properties and allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. Being aggrieved by the same, this Second Appeal has been filed.

6. The following substantial questions of law were framed at the time of admission of the Second Appeal:-

i) Whether the Lower Appellate Court has rightly placed the burden of proof for arriving at a conclusion that the suit properties are ancestral properties?

ii) Whether the respondents/plaintiffs are entitled to get the decree for partition, when they failed to prove that the ancestral properties provided the consideration for the purchase of the suit properties?

iii) Whether the Lower Appellate Court is right in holding that the suit properties are joint family properties?

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants Mr.N.Manokaran, submi