The property in question is a joint family property, and the burden of proof for self-acquisition lies with the defendants, which they failed to establish.

JUDGMENT :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

This appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S No. 5 of 2008 by the Principal District Judge, Principal District Court, Coimbatore dated 13.07.2009 and confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Sub Judge, Principal Sub Court, Coimbatore in O.S No. 122 of 2005 dated 23.04.2007.

2. Originally suit in O.S No.122 of 2005 was filed by the first respondent seeking for partition of the suit property into three equal shares and for allotment and possession of 1/3^rd share. The plaintiff is the son the defendants 1 and 2. The third defendant is the sister of the plaintiff.

3. The parties are referred to as per their own ranking before the Trial Court.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property is a joint family property acquired during the lifetime of his paternal grandfather Ramasami Gounder and grandmother Karuppathal. Ramasami Gounder and Karuppathal and other children conveyed the suit properties vide sale deed dated 13.02.1974 in favour of his defendants 1 and 2. The suit is a joint family property as per the recitals in the sale deed. Even though as per the recitals of the sale deed that the second defendant along with the first defendant has purchased the suit properties, she is only a name lender and no separate consideration passed from her. Hence, she has no independent right over the suit property. The purchase was made as the joint family property represented by the first defendant as Kartha. The suit property always remained as the joint family property in the hands of the plaintiff and the first defendant and the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are in joint possession of the suit property. The plaintiff is entitled to one third share by birth and thus, the three co-parceners are the plaintiff, the first defendant and third defendant. While things stood thus, the defendants 1 and 2 tried to alienate the suit property in favour of the fourth defendant/appellant. Hence, the plaintiff issued a legal notice and thereafter, the present suit has been filed.

5. It is the contention of the second defendant in the written statement that the suit properties are not joint family properties as claimed by the plaintiff. Originally, the southern portion of the suit property was purchased by Karuppathal/grand mother of the plaintiff vide sale deed dated 07.10.1946. The northern portion of the suit property was purchased by Ramasamy Gounder vide sale deed dated 07.02.1959 from Narayana Naicker. Consequently, the two sites constituted one unit and were in respective possession of the husband and wife. In fact, the property devolved from a maternal line and therefore, cannot be described as ancestral property. Further, they mortgaged the suit property to one Ramaswamy Gounder and borrowed a sum of Rs.1000/- and thereafter, on 11.12.1964, the mortgage deed was discharged. Thereafter, since, the Ramasami Gounder was indebted to Thudiyalur Co-operative Society to the extent of Rs.3000/-, they entered into an agreement of sale with defendants 1 and 2 fixing the sale price as Rs.7500/- and an advance of Rs.4000 was also received by them. Thereafter, sale deed was executed on 13.02.1974 and the defendants 1 and 2 have improved the built up area out of their own exertions and savings. It is the further contention that after the marriage of the second defendant, the