1. The plaintiffs, who have lost their suit for partition and consequential permanent injunction before the trial court and the first appellate court are the appellants herein.

2. Background of the litigation:

Adimoolam Naicker is the first defendant in the suit. He had four sons and one daughter. The suit schedule property measuring to extent of 6.50 acres was purchased by him from one Karunakaran vagaiyara in the year 1983 and 1984. The revenue records are in his name and kist is paid in his name. He had entered into a sale agreement with one U.Shridar and had received advance of Rs.10 lakhs from him. In the said sale agreement his son Srinivasan, one of the plaintiff and his wife Kannammal had signed as witnesses.

3. The suit for partition initially filed by all his sons and daughter claiming 1/6 share each. Later, except two sons Srinivasan and Jaganathan, his all other children and legal heirs of pre-deceased son Venkatesan have transposed themselves as defendants and sail with Adimoolam. On considering the evidence placed by rival parties, both the Courts below had held against the plaintiffs, since they have not proved the suit property was the joint property of the family bequeathed by their great grandfather or property acquired through joint exertion of the family members or acquired through the source of joint family nucleus.

4. Pleadings:

The case of the appellants as found in their plaint is that, the suit schedule property is the ancestral property bequeathed by their great grandfather and in joint possession and enjoyment of their family in which their father Adimoolam, the first respondent is the manager and kartha. The second respondent had prevailed over their father to create a sham and nominal alienation of the entire property for a song with the view to defraud their legitimate right.

5. The first respondent has pleaded that the suit property is his self acquired property. He has purchased the same through his own earning from N.Karunakaran vagayara through two sale deeds dated 07.09.1983 and 26.04.1984. After purchase, the title deed and revenue records are mutated in his name. The property is in his possession and enjoyment. The claim of the plaintiffs that the property is joint ancestral property, is baseless. The family had no ancestral property, he through his cattle business and real estate business, earned money to purchase the property.

6. The second respondent, who is the agreement holder of the property from first respondent, has pleaded that the suit is a collusive suit between the sons and father to defeat his interest. The first respondent has entered into an agreement to sell the suit property and had received advance of Rs.10 lakhs. In the sale agreement, the first appellant Srinivasan and his mother Kannammal (wife of Adimoolam) had signed as witnesses. Since the first defendant has failed to come forward to execute the sale deed, notice to complete the contract has been caused and contemplating to file the suit for specific performance.

7. The trial Court after appreciating the respective pleadings and evidence has dismissed the suit and the same has been confirmed by the first appellate Court. In the second appeal before this Court, the appellants has raised the following Substantial Questions of Law:-

(A) Whether the Courts below are right in placing the onus on the plaintiffs to prove that the suit properties were purchased with the income from the joint family nucleus without considering the fact that the 1st defendant being the kartha of the joint family and the onus on him prove that the suit properties were purchased without aid or assistance from the ancestral or joint family property?

(B) Whether the Courts below are right in holding that the suit properties are purchased by the1st defendant from his personal income without any evidence, hence it is perverse?

(C) Whether the Courts below are right in holding that the pleadings of the appellants/plaintiffs is destructive to the case