IMPORTANT POINT
The burden of proof is on the party asserting that the property is joint family property, and unless the foundational facts are established, the property will be deemed to be the self-acquired property of the individual member.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge's (FTC) Court at Ariyalur dated 09.08.2007 in A.S.No.62 of 2004, reversing the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court at Ariyalur dated 28.06.2002 in O.S.No.185 of 2000.)

By order dated 31.01.2019, the second appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court. The matter went in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in C.A.No.524 of 2023 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an order dated 25.01.2023 allowed the appeal, setting aside the order dated 31.01.2019 and remanded the matter to this Court for fresh disposal. Pursuant to the order of remand, the Appeal is listed before this Court.

1. The plaintiffs 1, 3 and 4 are before this Court in the Appeal as appellants 1 to 3 and legal heir of the 2nd plaintiff is the 4th appellant. Pending appeal, the 2nd and 3rd appellants died and the legal heirs have been substituted as appellants 5 to 9.

2. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 09.08.2007 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge's (FTC) Court, Ariyalur in A.S.No.62 of 2004 reversing the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2002 in O.S.No.185 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ariyalur.

3. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred as per the ranking before the trial Court.

4. According to the plaintiffs, one Maruthumuthu had four sons namely, Ramasamy, Dharmalingam, Gurusamy and Rengaraj. Maruthumuthu had purchased the suit property in the name of his son Rengaraj, who is the defendant and he enjoyed the suit property as joint family property till his life time along with other joint family properties. Maruthumuthu died about 20 years ago, leaving behind his sons as the legal heirs to succeed his estate. After the death of Maruthumuthu, Ramasamy being the elder son was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties till his life time for himself and other legal heirs. The other son Gurusamy died intestate leaving behind him, the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs as his legal heirs and the said Ramasamy also died intestate, leaving behind him his wife, the 1st plaintiff as the legal heir. The plaintiffs and defendants are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property as joint family property. Patta has been issued in the name of the plaintiffs and defendants in the year April 2000 and the kist for the suit property has also been regularly paid by Ramasamy and the 1st plaintiff. The entire consideration was paid by Maruthumuthu. The defendant did not have any independent income at the time of purchase and further after the purchase of the suit property, it has been treated as joint family property and therefore the defendant has no independent rights, except his right of 1/4th share. Based on the petition filed by Rengaraj, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ariyalur had passed orders in favour of the defendant for issuing separate patta in the suit property. The Revenue Authority had not taken note of the fact that the suit property has been treated as joint family property. Since the defendant made hectic efforts to sell the suit property, plaintiffs came up with a suit to declare the suit property as joint family property of the plaintiffs and defendants and for permanent injunction.

5. As the defendant had died, his legal heirs were impleaded as defendants 2 to 6 in the suit and they resisted the suit by contending that the 1st defendant Rengaraj, due to the dispute with his father had left the house even at an early age and was residing separately at Trichy. He had been working in a tea shop and also doing independent business. He worked in a shop called Radio Tea Stall near Trichy Tollgate for several years and also as a Cashier in the tea shop and earned independent income. Out of the income earned by him, he had purchased the suit property on 09.04.1956 adjacent to the ancest