The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the party alleging self-acquisition to affirmatively prove that the property was acquired without the aid of joint family funds, and the burden of proof to establish the existence of a joint family nucleus from which the property could have been acquired.

G. RAJASURIA, J.

This appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1995 passed in O.S. No. 323 of 1991 by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, which is a suit 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 plaintiffs, succinctly and precisely, niggard and bereft of details, as stood exposited from the plaint would run thus:

a) The couple Nagammal and Sundaram Pillai had three sons and four daughters, viz., 1. S. Sarangapani, 2. S. Varadharaj, 3. S. Chandrasekar, 4. K. Dhanabakkiyam, 5. K. Jayalakshmi, 6. P. Indirani, 7. S. Sarojini.

b) The first son Sarangapani died leaving behind his wife, the plaintiff and his children viz., plaintiffs 2 to 9.

c) The second son, Varadharaj, died leaving behind his wife Dhanalakshmi, the first defendant and his children, viz., defendants 2 to 5.

d) The third son of Naganvnal and Sundaram Pillai is the sixth defendant.

e) The defendants 7 to 10 are the daughters of the deceased Nagammal.

f) In the immovable property described in the schedule of the plaint ¼th share was purchased by the said Nagammal as per registered sale deed dated 16.3.1942. Nagammal's deceased first son Sarangapani purchased the remaining 3/4 th share as per registered sale deed dated 17.3.1970, out of his own earnings and that said 3/4th share became his absolute property. The said Sarangapani after demolishing the structure in his said ¾th share, which bore Old Door No. 512, raised a new construction and a new number was assigned to it as New Door No. 999, Nethaji Road, Erode-2. As such, the plaintiffs, being the legal heirs of deceased Sarangapani, are the absolute owners of the said property of Sarangapani. The defendants 7 to 10, being the daughters of Nagammal got married and settled in their respective husband's places. The said deceased Varadharaj and D6 Chandrasekaran were living in the 1/4th share of the property purchased by Nagammal, who died in the year 1982 and Sarangapani, the propositus of the plaintiffs died in the year 1984. Varadharaj died in the year 1991. Subsequently, there arose misunderstanding among the parties to the suit relating to their right over the plaint scheduled property. Hence, the suit for partition seeking the following main reliefs:

i) directing the division of the plaintiff schedule properties into 140 equal shares by metes and bounds with reference to good and bad soil.

ii) allotting to and putting the plaintiffs 110 shares consecutively the portion where in the building old D. No. 512 and New D. No. 999 constructed by deceased Sarangapani is situate and the building bearing D. No. 512 and New D. No. 999, Nethaji Street, Erode.

3. Remonstrating and refitting, gainsaying and impugning, the allegations/averments in the plaint, the defendants filed the written statement, which was adopted by D1 to D5 and D7 to D10.

a) The said 3/4th share in the plaint scheduled property belonged to E.V. Ramasami Naicker and the 1/4th share belonged to Nagammal. Between the two there arose a litigation in O.S. No. 58 of 1943 for partition and possession. Ultimately, the suit was compromised. Since the said property could not be divided, the said E.V. Ramasami Naicker wanted to sell the said ¾th share but not to Nagammal, who fought tooth and nail in litigation against him but in favour of Sarangapani, being the eldest son of the family of the Nagammal, Hence, in such circumstances only, the sale deed dated 17.3.1970 emerged in favour of Sarangapani on behalf of the entire family.

b) The allegations in the plaint that Sarangapani demolished the structure in the ¾th share and raised a new building out of his own earnings is false. The said new building was raised from out of the income derived from the joint family business, viz., lorry business, which was conducted under the name and style "Erode Transport Syndicate" situated at No. 1, Park Road