The burden of proof under Section 101 of the Evidence Act lies on the person claiming a property as joint family property. The courts concluded that the second defendant had no locus standi to execute the Settlement Deed, and the plaintiff failed to establish the property as self-acquired by the second defendant.

1. The Second Appeal on hand is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.960 of 1991 as well as by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.32 of 2003.

2. The ranking of the parties are referred as per the ranking assigned before the Trial Court.

3. The facts in nutshell to be considered with reference to the pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendants are that the suit was filed for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff, originally at the time of institution of the suit, was a minor represented by the natural guardian father and the first defendant is the son of the second defendant, so also the father of the minor plaintiff.

4. The second defendant, who is none other than the grandfather of the plaintiff, executed a Settlement Deed in favour of the plaintiff on 19.6.1991. Pursuant to the Settlement, the plaintiff claims that he was in possession and enjoyment of the properties settled in his name. It was contended that the Settlement executed by the second defendant/grandfather was cancelled by him in Ex.A-2. Ex.A-1 is the Settlement Deed and Ex.A-2 is the Cancellation Deed. Questioning the actions of the second defendant, the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit on the ground that the Settlement Deed executed and the title transferred in the name of the plaintiff can never be taken away by way of a Cancellation Deed. So the Settlement Deed was illegally executed by the second defendant, who is none other than the grandfather of the plaintiff.

5. The first defendant contested the suit mainly on the ground that the second defendant has no authority or locus standi to execute the Settlement Deed in favcour of the plaintiff. The suit schedule property was purchased from and out of the sale proceeds of the Joint Family Property as well as the personal income of the first defendant. In other words, the sale consideration for the purchase of the suit schedule properties were made from and out of the personal income of the first defendant as well as from and out of the sale proceeds of the Joint Family Property belongs to the plaintiff and the defendants. Such being the factum, the unilateral execution of the Settlement Deed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff is certainly null and void and therefore, the Cancellation Deed executed by the second defendant was done in order to cure the illegalities committed by the second defendant by executing the Settlement Deed in favour of the plaintiff.

6. The learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the first defendant, also urged this Court by stating that the very issue in relation to Section 101 of the Evidence Act, was also dealt with by the Trial Court and a conclusion was arrived on the ground that the person, who approaches the Court must establish his case under the provisions of the Evidence Act and therefore, the very question of law now raised before this Court was considered by the Trial Court with substantial reasonings and accordingly, the question of law raised is to be rejected.

7. It is further contended that the plaintiff had not established that the properties settled by the second defendant was from and out of his own earnings. The plaintiff had failed to establish that the second defendant is capable of executing a Settlement Deed in respect of the suit schedule properties purchased from and out of the sale proceeds of the Joint Family Properties as well as the personal income of the first defendant. In the absence of establishing the right of the second defendant to execute the Settlement Deed in favour of the plaintiff, the Cancellation Deed is to be construed as a valid document in view of the fact that the Trial Court adjudicated all these facts on merits and arrived a conclusion that the plaintiff had not established his case by filing necessary documents and by adducing evidences with reference to the Evidence Act.

8. The Trial Court formulated the issues by stating that whethe