The burden of proof is on the party alleging that the property has the character of joint family property. Properties standing in the name of an individual are considered to belong to that individual exclusively until proven otherwise.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.12.2012 in A.S.No.39 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Court, Villupram, as confirmed by the Judgment and Decree dated 23.12.2010 in O.S.No.3 of 2005 on the file of Subordinate Court, Gingee.)

1. The defendants 12, 15 to 18 are the appellants in this Second Appeal.

2. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the relief of partition and for allotment of 1/3rd share in the suit properties and for rendition of accounts by the 2nd defendant.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the “A” Schedule property was left behind by Elumalai Gounder and the plaintiff and defendants 1 & 2 being his sons are entitled to the said property. The further case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff and the 1st defendant were living away from the property in view of their avocation and initially the property was under the control of the mother and thereafter, it came into the absolute control of the 2nd defendant. The further case of the plaintiff is that the “A” Schedule property yielded sufficient income. The “B” Schedule property initially stood in the name of the mother and she settled the property in favour of her three sons through a registered Settlement Deed dated 22.07.1972. Insofar as the “C” Schedule property is concerned, it was purchased in the name of the 1st defendant. The “D” Schedule property was purchased in the name of the 2nd defendant and the “E” Schedule property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, even though the “B” Schedule, “C” schedule, “D” Schedule and “E” Schedule properties were purchased in individual names, all these properties formed part of the joint family property, since it was purchased from the income yielded from the “A” Schedule property.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the 2nd defendant was not willing to come forward to partition the properties and to render the accounts for the income derived from the properties and hence, the suit came to be filed for the relief of partition and allotment of 1/3rd share in the suit properties.

5. The case of the 2nd defendant is that he was employed during the period from 1959 to 1962 and thereafter, he left employment and started doing contract work from the year 1963 onwards. He became a major contractor in the year 1970. Hence, he had sufficient source and earnings to purchase properties individually in his name. Accordingly, all the properties mentioned in the “D” Schedule were purchased by the 2nd defendant with his own income and the revenue records were also mutated in his name. Therefore, the 2nd defendant had taken a stand that the “D” Schedule property cannot form part of partition, since he is the exclusive owner of the property.

6. The 12th defendant filed a separate written statement and she claimed her right through the 11th defendant by virtue of the registered Sale Deed dated 13.01.1992. The 12th defendant is none other than the wife of the 2nd defendant who was claiming ownership in the “F” Schedule property. This defendant virtually supported the stand taken by the 2nd defendant.

7. The defendants 15 to 18 are none other than the legal heirs of the deceased 2nd defendant and they were impleaded after the demise of the 2nd defendant during the pendency of the suit.

8. The trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence decreed the suit in O.S.No.3 of 2005 and a preliminary Decree was passed with respect to suit Schedule “A” to “E” and the plaintiff was held to be entitled for 1/3rd share in those properties.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 12, 15 to 18 filed A.S.No.39 of 2011 before the Principal District Judge, Villupuram. This appeal was dismissed by Judgment and Decree dated 07.12.2012 and the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, defendants 12, 15 to 18