In family property disputes, the onus lies on claimants to prove joint ownership; properties recorded in female names are presumed to be theirs unless specifically evidenced otherwise.

JUDGMENT :

V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.

The plaintiffs challenge the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Villipuram in A.S.No.90 of 1997 date to 28.07.1998 in confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge at Tindivanam in O.S.No.7 of 1989 dated 31.01.1997.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their ranks in the suit.

3. O.S.No.7 of 1989 is a suit for partition and separate possession. The suit schedule mentioned properties have been earmarked as 'A' schedule and 'B' schedule. Insofar as 'A' schedule properties are concerned, there is no dispute. The trial court decreed the suit declaring 29/49^th share in 'A' schedule mentioned property and passed preliminary decree. It dismissed the suit with respect to 'B' schedule mentioned property. The defendants did not prefer an appeal, insofar as the first part of the trial court decree is concerned. It was only the plaintiffs, who had preferred an appeal, aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit with respect to 'B' schedule. The appellate court agreed with the judgment and decree of the trial court with respect to 'B' schedule. Hence, this second appeal.

4. The plaintiffs 1 to 4, defendants 2 to 4 are the children of the first defendant, Raju Naidu and Alamelu Ammal. The fifth defendant is the wife of the second defendant and the daughter-in-law of the said Raja Naidu and Alamelu Ammal.

5. For ready reference, the admitted genealogy is setforth hereunder:

6. The case of the plaintiffs is that 'A' schedule mentioned properties are joint family properties. Items 1 to 3 and 7 are the properties purchased by Raju Naidu in the name of his wife, Alamelu Ammal. Similarly, items 4, 5 and 6 are also properties, which belonged to the joint family. According to them, the plaintiffs had left their native village and had gone elsewhere for the purpose of their avocation. They sent monies to Raju Naidu, who was residing in the native place along with one son. The properties specified in the 'B' schedule were purchased by Raju Naidu, from and out of the funds, available in the joint family pooling it with the contributions of the plaintiffs. Raju Naidu did not have any independent right over the property nor did Alamelu Ammal. Alamelu Ammal settled the property in favour of the plaintiffs' sibling, Rani.

7. As Alamelu Ammal herself did not have right, the execution of the settlement deed does not bind the plaintiffs. Similarly Raja Naidu had sold the properties covered in items 4, 5 and 6 in favour of Mallika, his daughter-in-law. As Raju Naidu did not have any right over the property, the alienation will not bind the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs further pleaded that whatever debts that had been incurred by the father, viz., the first defendant had been repaid and the property was debt free. As amicable partition was not possible, they came forth with the present suit for partition.

8. Pending the suit, Raju Naidu passed away. As his legal heirs were already on record, no further action had to be initiated nor was initiated. The siblings of the plaintiffs, Pandurangan and Purushothaman were served with summons, but remained exparte. The sister of the plaintiffs, 4^th defendant, on being served with summons, filed a written statement and with the permission of the court, she also filed a