Joint family property claims require corroborative evidence of shared ownership; mere assertions are insufficient against established separate property ownership.

JUDGEMENT :

T.V. THAMILSELVI, J.

The appellant has filed this appeal to set aside the Judgement and decree dated 03.12.2003 passed by the learned I Additional District Judge, Erode in A.S.No.113 of 2002, reversing the judgement and decree dated 28.02.2002, passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode in O.S.No.54 of 1996.

2. Challenging the reversal findings of the first appellate court, the purchaser of the first item of the suit property, the 10th defendant, has preferred this appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are ranked in the suit.

4. Before the trial court, the plaintiffs / respondents 1 to 4 herein, who are the legal heirs of deceased Periyasamy Gounder, filed a suit for partition claiming their lawful share in the suit properties against defendants 1 to 11. In the suit schedule, the properties are described as Item Nos. 1 to 4, consisting of agricultural lands and house properties. The plaintiffs contended that all the suit properties, Item Nos. 1 to 4, are joint family properties of one Perumal Gounder, who died intestate in the year 1972, leaving behind six sons and one daughter. The eldest son, Periyasamy, predeceased, leaving behind the plaintiffs as his legal heirs. Defendants 1 to 3 are also sons of Perumal Gounder. The other two sons died, leaving behind their legal heirs, who were impleaded as defendants 4 to 11. Since the plaintiffs are entitled to their lawful share and the defendants refused to allot the same, they issued a notice and, after its receipt, filed the suit for partition. They further contended that the second defendant created an encumbrance in favour of the 10th defendant in respect of Item No. 1 of the suit properties, but the same is not binding upon them. They prayed for partition.

5. The second defendant contested the suit stating that, during the lifetime of his father Perumal Gounder, an oral partition took place in the family. He further contended that Items 1, 2 and 4 are not joint family properties. According to him, Item No. 4 was purchased by him and is his absolute property. With respect to Item No. 1, he contended that it originally belonged to the Government. Under a lease, Perumal Gounder enjoyed the property. Thereafter, the lease stood in the name of his father. Subsequently, a registered lease deed was executed in favour of the second defendant in the year 1965. Owing to disputes among the sharers, a family panchayat was convened, wherein Item No. 1 was allotted to the second defendant through an unregistered Muchalika marked as Ex.B15. Pursuant to this, patta was granted in his name in the year 1995 (Ex.P24), and ‘Ayyan patta’ was also issued in his favour. He claimed that he enjoyed the property as its absolute owner and sold it to P.C. Palaniswami and Ramasamy under Ex.B26, a sale deed of July 1995. Thereafter, the 10th defendant purchased the said property from Palaniswami and Ramasamy, and patta was subsequently transferred in the name of the 10th defendant.

6. The defendants further contended that the 10th defendant paid the market value of Rs. 1,05,884/- as demanded by the authorities for the year 1996–1997, and the DRO passed a final order in favour of the 10th defendant. Thus, the 10th defendant claimed title over Item No. 1, measuring 1.22 acres. With resp