The burden of proof on the plaintiffs to establish the disputed properties as joint family properties and the application of settled principles of law in determining the entitlement to the properties.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in S.A.No.630 of 2016: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.5 of 2015, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri dated 01.02.2016 in reversing the well considered judgment and decree in O.S.No.191 of 2014, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai, dated 28.11.2014.

S.A.No.631 of 2016: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.6 of 2015, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri dated 01.02.2016 in reversing the well considered judgment and decree in O.S.No.190 of 2014, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai, dated 28.11.2014.

S.A.No.738 of 2016: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree of the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri dated 01.02.2016 made in A.S.No.6 of 2015, in modifying the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai, dated 28.11.2014 made in O.S.No.190 of 2014.)

Common Judgment

1. The issue involved in all these Second Appeals are common and hence they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this Common Judgment.

2. Second Appeal Nos. 630 and 631 of 2016 has been filed by the defendants 1, 4, 5 and 6 in O.S. No. 190 of 2014 and plaintiff in O.S. No. 191 of 2014. Second Appeal No. 738 of 2016 has been filed by the 7th defendant (subsequent purchaser) in O.S. No. 190 of 2014.

3. For better understanding, the parties will be identified with their rank in O.S. No. 190 of 2014.

4. The plaintiffs filed a suit seeking for the relief of partition and allotment of 3/5th share in the suit properties and for a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from alienating the suit properties and for declaring the partition deed dated 2.5.2002 as bad and not binding.

5. The 1st defendant filed the suit in O.S. No. 191 of 2014 seeking for a declaration of title in the A schedule properties and for a permanent injunction against the defendants therein from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the A schedule properties.

6. The “A” schedule properties in O.S. No. 190 of 2014 is the “B” schedule properties in O.S. No. 191 of 2014. Similarly the B schedule properties in O. S. No. 190 of 2014 is the “A” schedule properties in O.S. No. 191 of 2014. The 7th defendant who has filed Second Appeal No. 738 of 2016, has purchased 3 items of properties in the B schedule properties in O.S. No. 190 of 2014 from the 1st defendant. For easy understanding, the “A” schedule properties in O. S. No. 190 of 2014 can be identified as the joint family properties and the “B” schedule properties in O.S. No. 190 of 2014 can be identifiedas the self-acquired properties of the 1st defendant. It will also be more appropriate to state that the present appeals confines itself to the dispute and the relief granted insofar as the “B” schedule properties are concerned. The relief granted for the“A” schedule properties by the Trial Court in favour of the plaintiffs has become final and it has not been put to challenge by the defendants.

7. The case of the plaintiffs is that they are the daughters of the 1st and 2nd defendants and the 3rd defendant is their brother. It is stated that the 1st defendant married the 4th defendant as his second wife and the 5th and 6th defendants were born to them. The further case of the plaintiffs is that the “A” schedule properties are ancestral properties with good yielding coconut trees and granite quarry. They have also pleaded that the “A” schedule properties was the main source of income and there was a surplus left after meeting the family expenses. They contended that with the surplus income, the 1st defendant purchased various properties mentioned in the B schedule and these properties are also joint family properties. According to them, the 1st defendant had put up 7 shops and 2 residential houses an