The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of blending of ancestral income with individual income in the context of partition of ancestral properties under Hindu law, and the proper assessment of the burden of proof in such cases.

1. This appeal is focussed by the plaintiffs as against the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2009 made in O.S.No.156 of 2007, which was a suit for partition, on the file of the Additional District Judge cum Fast Track Court II, Salem. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this appeal would run thus The four minor plaintiffs through their mother and next friend, filed the suit for partition seeking the following reliefs in respect of the two items of properties, contending that those properties are the ancestral properties in which they are entitled to shares:

"(a) To direct the defendants to divide the suit properties into 10 equal shares and allot 4 such continguous share to the plaintiffs making provision for passing final decree after appointment of commission;

(b) To restrain the defendants by means of permanent injunction from in any way alienating or encumbering the suit properties, till the division is over; and

(c) For costs." (extracted as such)

3. The defendants filed the common written statement resisting the suit; whereupon issues were framed.

4. During trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs mother was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D2-Palaniappan examined himself as D.W.2 and Ex.B1 was marked.

5. Ultimately the trial Court decreed the suit in respect of the first item, allotting 4/10th share in favour of the plaintiffs and the rest of the prayer was dismissed on the finding that the second item was not the ancestral property. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court in rejecting the prayer for partition of the second item of the property, this appeal has been filed on various grounds.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants placing reliance on the grounds of appeal would pilate his arguments, inviting the attention of this Court to various portions of the evidence, a thumb nail sketch of the same, would run thus:

(a) The relationship among the parties is an admitted one. D1-Kandasamy obtained the first item of the property with some other portion in a partition among his brothers and himself. A part of such ancestral property was sold vide the sale deed as contained in Ex.A12 on 26.05.1999. Immediately, so to say on 03.06.1999, the second item of the suit property was purchased in the name of D2 utilising the said sale proceeds. As such, the concept blending ought to have been ushered in by the trial Court, but the trial Court wrongly held as though the plaintiffs did not adduce any evidence to prove that the second item of the suit property was also an ancestral property.

(b) Preponderance of probabilities would govern the adjudication in civil cases and the plaintiffs being minors, amply established before the trial Court that there were probabilities to presume that the sale proceeds which D1 got by selling a portion of the ancestral portion of the property on 03.06.1999, utilised the same for purchasing the second item of the suit property. But the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in proper perspective. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellants would pray for setting aside that much portion of the judgment and decree of the trial Court in rejecting the prayer for partition in respect of the second item of the property, and for decreeing the suit in entirety as prayed for.

7. In a bid to shoot down and mince meat, torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the appellants/plaintiffs, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would advance his arguments, the pith and marrow of them would run thus:

(a) The onus of proof was on the plaintiffs to prove that the second item of the suit property was purchased from out of the joint family in