The burden of proof lies on the party asserting joint family properties, and without specific pleading and evidence, properties cannot be presumed as joint family properties.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under section 96 of CPC against the decree and judgment dated 31.03.2016 passed in OS.No.653/2009 on the file of learned IV Additional District Judge, Coimbatore.)

S.S. Sundar, J.

(1) Plaintiffs in OS.No.653/2009 on the file of the IV Additional District Court, Coimbatore, are the appellants in the present Appeal.

(2) The appellants filed the suit for partition of their 4/5th shares in the suit property and for consequential reliefs.

(3) The case of the appellants as plaintiffs, in the plaint, can be summarised as follows:

(4) Plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2 are sons and daughters of one Mr.Natarajan and Mangalambal. One Vasantha Kokilam was also the other daughter of Natarajan and she died before suit. Defendants 3 and 4 are the children of the deceased daughter Vasantha Kokilam.

(5) It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit properties are the joint family properties of plaintiffs and their father. The same was purchased and registered under a Sale Deed dated 27.06.1973 [Ex.B2] in the name of Mr.Natarajan. Since Mr.Natarajan, was the Kartha and head of the family, it is stated that the properties were purchased in his name out of the income from the joint family business. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the family had a business of letting out vessels, furnitures and other items suitable for marriage functions and like events and social gatherings. Stating that the father and sons jointly exerted and looked after the business, it is contended that the income and savings from the business were utilised to purchase the suit properties. It is stated that the family members at all times, treated and acknowledged the suit properties as the joint family properties of plaintiffs and their father.

(6) The further case of the plaintiffs is that the 2nd defendant though got married, she got separated from her husband and was living with her parents as a divorcee. The father of plaintiffs was suffering from sugar complaint and several other ailments. In view of his physical ailments, the plaintiffs- father could not maintain mental balance and it was at that time, the daughters had brought the two documents, namely, the Sale Deeds dated 30.01.1995 and 01.02.1995 marked as Exs.B3 and B4 in favour of Vasantha Kokilam, the deceased daughter and 1st defendant. According to plaintiffs, the documents were not supported by any consideration. It is the further case of plaintiffs that their father had no power to alienate the properties and the fictitious documents, namely the Sale Deeds, are therefore, void and not binding on plaintiffs.

(7) The plaintiffs further state that their sisters started continuously staying with plaintiffs- parents and defendants 1 and 2 colluded with their parents and brought about a Settlement Deed dated 04.12.2002 marked as Ex.B5 taking advantage of their fiduciary position. Since the daughters were already given enough properties by their parents, it is contended that the Settlement Deed could not have been executed but for the physical ailments and mental incapacity of their father. The father of plaintiffs died intestate on 03.04.2004 and the mother Mangalambal died on 20.10.2004. The plaintiffs as members of joint family, claimed to 1/3rd share each and 1/18th share in their father-s 1/3rd share and 1/19th share in their mother-s 1/18th share. In all, the plaintiffs claimed that they are entitled to 4/5th share in the suit properties.

(8) The suit was resisted by the 1st defendant by filing a written statement. She denied the averments made in the plaint parawise. It is the case of the 1st defendant that the suit properties are the absolute self-acquired properties of her father namely Mr.Natarajan. The contention of plaintiffs that the father purchased the suit property as Kartha and head of family was emphatically denied. It is stated that there was no family business to yield income in 1973 and that the property was purchased out of his own savings. The 1st defe