The burden of proof lies on asserting self-acquisition when joint family property is claimed, as evidenced in the judgment affirming the trial court's findings on property character.

JUDGMENT :

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

1. The appellant/Balakrishnan herein filed Suit in O.S.No.289 of 1993 for partition and separate possession as against his father/1^st defendant and his brother/2nd defendant and other defendants viz., sons and wife of the 2^nd defendant, claiming 1/3rd share in respect of entire A, B, C and D suit schedule properties, stating that all the above properties are ancestral joint family properties.

2. The 5^th defendant Rathinammal filed suit in O.S.No.115 of 1993 claiming permanent injunction claiming reliefs in respect of D Schedule property stating that it is her absolute property, in which, the said Balakrishnan has no right and title.

3. The 1^st defendant/father of the plaintiff claimed that the suit properties are his self-acquired property; 2^nd defendant’s wife D-5 claimed that ‘D’ schedule property is her absolute property.

4. On contest, partition was granted in respect of A, B, C schedule properties. However, in respect of the disputed property viz., D schedule property is concerned, the suit was dismissed.

5. Aggrieved by that, Balakrishnan filed A.S.No.72 of 2004 only in respect of D schedule property. The said 1^st appeal was also dismissed. Against which, he filed S.A.No.571 of 2005. So also, defendants 1 and 2 preferred appeal in A.S.No.33 of 2004 in respect of A, B, C schedule properties, wherein, the 1^st appellate court allowed the said appeal and set aside the findings of the trial court, thereby, the relief of partition not granted. Aggrieved by that, the plaintiff has filed S.A.No.568 of 2005 in respect of A, B, C Schedule properties; S.A.No.571 of 2005 in respect of D schedule properties.

6. Rathinammal, sister-in-law of the plaintiff filed separate suit in O.S.No.115 of 1993 against this appellant Balakrishnan stating that D schedule properties. [D Schedule property also in O.S.No.289 of 1993] is a separate property and D5 claims that it is her self acquired property. On contest, the suit was decreed in favour of Rathinammal, against which, the appellant Balakrishnan filed appeal in A.S.No.70 of 2004 and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by that, he preferred appeal in S.A.No.570 of 2005.

7. The plaintiff’s brother’s sons i.e. D-2’s sons viz., Gopinath and Mohanram filed another suit in O.S.No.288 of 1993 stating that as per the Settlement Deed executed by their grandfather, they are the absolute owners of A, B, C and D schedule properties covered in O.S.No.289 of 1993. The above said suits O.S.288/1993 and 289/1993 were dismissed by the trial court, against which, the said Gopinath and another preferred appeal in A.S.No.32 and 33 of 2004 and the same were allowed by the 1^st Appellate Judge. Aggrieved by that, the appellant/Balakrishnan filed S.A.No.568 and 569 of 2005.

8. As the parties and the suit properties are one and the same, all the above appeals are taken up together and heard jointly for pronouncing the common judgment.

9. The contention of the appellant/Balakrishnan in the legal notice issued to the defendants is that A, B, C, D suit properties as described in O.S.No.289 of 1993 is a joint family property belongs to his father and managed by his father/1st defendant-1st respondent herein. However, the respondents in their reply notice, denied the averments and stated that the averment that they are in common enjoyment is incorrect. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff Balakrishnan filed suit in O.S.No.289 of 1993 claiming 1/3rd share in the suit properties.

10. The father of the plaintiff contes