1. The Appellants have filed the present Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 27.09.1996 in A.S.No.75 of 1996 on the file of the Learned Sub Judge, Hosur.

2. The First Appellate Court, viz., the Learned Sub Judge, Hosur, while passing Judgment in A.S.No.75 of 1996, has, among other things, observed that it is not to be known that the Plaintiffs are in enjoyment of the suit properties as one property and on the basis of Commissioners Report and Plan, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to get the relief of permanent injunction and further that the Plaintiffs have not proved that they are in separate enjoyment of the suit properties.

3. Also, the First Appellate Court has opined that as far as the present case is concerned, the partition mentioned by Defendants 1 to 5 have been held to be true and therefore, the other Defendants have got a right to sell it to the 1st Defendant which cannot be injuncted by the Plaintiffs and all the more since Venkata Reddy possessed only 8 acres of punja land and each to their share has got 4 acres in partition, as seen from the oral evidence and further that it is not established that Venkata Reddy has separate income etc., and as such, it cannot be construed that from the income of 4 acres of ancestral property, the properties have been purchased and in the instant case on hand, the averment that 40 years ago a partition has taken place between the 1st Plaintiffs father and the 1st Defendant has not been proved and that the Plaintiffs have not approached the Court with clean hands and resultantly, allowed the Appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court in the main suit and dismissed the suit, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

4. Before the trial Court, in the main suit, 1 to 6 issues have been framed for adjudication. On the side of the Plaintiffs, witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.4 have been examined and Exs.A.1 to A.20 have been marked. On the side of Defendants, witnesses D.W.1 to D.W.3 have been examined and Exs.B.1 to B.7 have been marked. Also, Ex.C.1-Commissioners Report and Ex.C.2-Plan have been marked.

5. The trial Court, on an appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available record, while passing the Judgment in O.S.No.68 of 1980, has come to the resultant conclusion that in respect of suit properties in Survey No.903/1, 903/2, 906/2, 579 and Survey No.580 the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration and in respect of the other lands, it has dismissed the suit without costs.

6. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law have been framed by this Court.

(a)Whether the lower appellate court has considered the principle that in order to constitute a joint family, they ought to have been acquired from a nucleus which is sufficient and adequate to have the later acquisitions, in additions to joint family properties already in existence?

(b)When it is incumbent upon the defendants, who assert that the suit properties were acquired out of joint family property to establish it is the learned Subordinate Judge correct in shifting the burden on the plaintiff?

Contentions, Discussions and Findings on substantial questions of law 1 and 2:

7. According to the Learned Counsel for the Appellants, the trial Court ought to have decreed the suit as the Respondents/Defendants have failed to prove the alleged partition between the Plaintiffs father and their father and further, the trial Court has committed a mistake in coming to the conclusion that there has been a partition between the Plaintiffs and Defendants fathers based on the boundary description of Ex.A.1-Sale Deed dated 09.04.1952, Ex.A.2-Sale Deed dated 04.07.1952 and Ex.A.9-Sale Deed dated 05.04.1952.

8. Advancing her arguments, the Learned Counsel for the Appellants submits that when Ex.A.1-Sale Deed dated 09.04.1952, Ex.A.2-Sale Deed 04.07.1952 and Ex.A.9-Sale Deed dated 05.04.1952 pertaining to suit Item No.5 gi