The burden of proof rests on the party claiming property as joint family property to establish its character, particularly where self-acquisition is asserted without evidence of blending with ancestral resources.

JUDGMENT :

(G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.)

Suit filed for partition and separate possession.

2. The plaintiff is the daughter of the first defendant and sister of the second defendant. She claims 1/3rd share in the 13 items of immovable properties morefully described in the schedule to the plaint. The two purchasers of the First item property from the first defendant are arrayed as defendants 3 and 4. The Trial Court partly allowed the suit for partition in respect of items 4 to 11 and dismissed in respect of properties item 1,2,3,12 and 13. Being aggrieved, in respect of disallowed items the plaintiff is before this Court.

3. For convenience sake, the parties are described as per their status and ranking in the suit.

4. The case of the plaintiff: The suit schedule properties items 3 to 11 are ancestral properties, which her father got under a registered partition deed dated 10.03.1989 entered between the plaintiff’s father, father’s father and father’s brother. The first item property was purchased from the income derived from the ancestral property in the name of the first defendant on 04.03.1992. The second item property settled by the grandfather in favour of her father/ the first defendant on 29.09.2004 for the benefit of joint family. The 12th and 13th items of properties were purchased on 13.02.2004 and 10.04.2013 respectively in the name of the first defendant from out of the surplus income from the ancestral properties.

5. The case of the defendants : The defendants 1 and 2 state that the suit properties are not Hindu Joint Family properties and the plaintiff is not a member of the joint family. The averment in the plaint that items 1,12 and 13 were purchased from the income derived from the nucleus of the ancestral properties, is denied. The averment that those properties purchased in the name of the first defendant and got blend with the ancestral properties, is denied.

6. According to the defendants, the first item of the suit property is the self acquired property of the first defendant, who had his own income as employee under the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and other places. He purchased the first item of property on 04.03.1992 from out of his income and enjoying it absolutely. Being the absolute owner of the first item property, he sold it to 3rd and 4th defendants on 31.01.2013. Whereas, Items 2 and 3 of the suit properties were the properties allotted to Milagu Kannan Chettiyar, the father of the first defendant under the partition deed dated 10.03.1989. The said Milagu Kannan Chettiyar settled these two properties under deed dated 29.09.2004 to the first defendant. In that settlement deed, the husband of the plaintiff is one of the witness. The first defendant had taken possession of it and was enjoying it exclusively till he settled it to his son along with items 3 and 4 of the schedule.

7. Items 4 to 11 were allotted to the first defendant in the partition dated 10.03.1989 between the first defendant (Ganesan), his brother(Gopal) and his father (Milagu Kannan Chettiyar). From that date of partition, these properties are in possession and enjoyment of the first defendant as his absolute properties. On 06.06.2012, the first defendant had