The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish the source of income for property purchases, and the non-examination of a witness may not be fatal to the case if the burden of proof is not discharged.

1. This Second appeal is focussed by the plaintiff animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated dated dated 11.6.2009 passed by the District Judge, Villupuram, in A.S.No.2 of 2009, confirming the judgment and decree dated 5.11.2007 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Gingee, in O.S.No.14 of 2005, which was one for partition.

2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Niggard and bereft of unnecessary details, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this second appeal would run thus:

(i) The appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed the suit for partition citing as many as 28 items of the properties, on the main ground that all the suit items happened to be the coparcenary properties and out of which, some of the items had already came into the hands of the plaintiff's father-Vellaiya Gounder, who had two sons, namely, the plaintiff and D.1. D2 is the wife of D.1. D.1 was in the know of things as he happened to be a Government Servant, who was only dealing with the financial matters concerning the suit properties and as such, he had the opportunity of having joint family funds in his hands and as such, he purchased certain joint family properties in his own name, which are to be treated only as joint family properties.

(ii) Over and above that D1 also from out of the joint family income purchased some items of the suit properties in the name of his wife-D2, which are also to be construed as the joint family properties.

Accordingly, the plaintiff sought for partition of the entire suit properties and for allotting half share in them, in his favour.

(iii) Per contra, the defendants resisted the suit by raising various pleas, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

Defendant No.1 being a Government Servant, from out of his own income purchased certain items of the suit properties and D2, being a Government teacher, also having income and she purchased certain items of suit properties in her own name. However, the defendants had no objection for dividing those properties standing in the name of D.1 and D.2 into two halves and allotting one such half to the plaintiff.

(iv) Whereupon issues were framed. Up went the trial, during which, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.Ws.2 and 3 and marked Exs.A1 to A38. On the defendants' side, the first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 along with D.Ws.2 and 3 and Exs.B1 to B144 were marked on their side.

(v) Ultimately, the trial Court decreed the suit in respect of all items of the suit properties, excluding the items standing in the names of D.1 and D.2.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the appeal was filed by the plaintiff for nothing but to be dismissed by the first appellate Court, confirming the judgement of the trial Court.

5. Challenging and impugning the judgements and decrees of both the fora below, this second appeal has been focused on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:

"(a) Whether the Courts below correct in interpreting Section 120 of Evidence Act holding the husband can give evidence on behalf of his wife while the facts of this case are different?

(b) Whether the documents of sale deeds standing in the name of 2nd defendant(wife) are not legally proved when she failed to examine herself as a witness?

(c) While the Supreme Court held that the power agent cannot give evidence pertaining to certain facts of personal to the principal, similarly 1st defendant could not lead evidence about the personal savings and purchasing certain suit items?

(d) Whether the landed properties and houses are thrown into common hatch pot by 1st defendant and the suit for partition younger brother plaintiff, is maintainable.

(e) When the lower Court decreed the suit for partition in respect of some items and dismissed the suit in respect of certain items is not valid decree?

(f) If the