The burden of proof in establishing self-acquired property and the limited scope of interference in second appeals.

( 1 ) THIS second appeal has been filed at the instance of plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by the learned trial court and the appeal filed by him before the learned first appellate Court, has also been dismissed.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF-AMAR Bahadur Singh filed suit for injunction and for declaration that he is the owner having half share in the suit property. The suit property is a house, description whereof has been mentioned in the plaint.

( 3 ) THE pleadings of the plaintiff in the plaint is that vide partition deed dated 21-6-1972 there was a partition in the family and by this document of partition plaintiff-Amar Bahadur Singh and defendant No. 2-Sheetala Prasad Singh who are real brothers partitioned the property mentioned in the partition deed and it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2 that the property shall be sold and the sale price will be divided in two shares equally. However, the suit property which is a house could not be sold and, therefore, the suit property is the joint property of plaintiff and defendant no. 2 in which he is having share.

( 4 ) DEFENDANT No. 1-Devendra Singh who is the son of defendant No. 2 filed written statement, but defendant No. 2-Sheetala prasad Singh did not file any written statement. In the written statement filed by defendant No. 1-Devendra Singh, it has been specifically pleaded by him in paras 1 to 3 that the suit property is not the joint Hindu family property of the parties, indeed, it is his self-acquired property. In para-5 of the written statement, he has specifically pleaded that suit property was purchased by defendant No. 1 from his own earning and from the funds gifted to his wife by her parents and, therefore, the plaintiff has no right, title and interest in the suit property.

( 5 ) LEARNED trial Court after framing necessary issues and after recording the evidence of the parties, came to hold that the suit property is not the property of joint hindu family but the same is self-acquired property of defendant No. 1-Devendra Singh and eventually dismissed the suit. The appeal which was filed by plaintiff has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and decree by learned first appellate Court.

( 6 ) IN this manner, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

( 7 ) IT has been vehemently contended by learned senior counsel for the appellant that the two Courts below by misconstruing Ex. D/1 which is an acknowledgment of earlier partition, gave finding that the suit property is not the property of HUF and if that would be the position, there is substantial question of law involved in this appeal. The further contention of learned senior counsel is that if document Ex. P/1 dated 21-6-1972 is considered in proper prospective, it would reveal that it is only an acknowledgment of the earlier partition and, therefore, it does not require any registration under section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908.

( 8 ) THE alternative submission of learned senior counsel is that if the document Ex. P/1 is taken to be a partition deed and even if it is not registered, it can be read and used for co-lateral purpose under Section 49 of the Registration Act, in order to ascertain that plaintiff is in possession of the suit property.

( 9 ) ANOTHER contention of learned senior counsel is that defendant No. 1-Devendra singh failed to establish that the suit property is his self-acquired property and the source to purchase the suit property has also not been disclosed and proved by him and there is no connecting evidence in that regard and, therefore, two Courts below erred in substantial error of law in holding that the suit property is the self-acquired property of defendant No. 1.

( 10 ) HAVING heard learned senior counsel for the appellant, I am of the view that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

( 11 ) ON going through document Ex. P/1 which, according to learned senior counsel, is an acknowledgment of earlier partition, it is gathered that in fact this

Click Here to Read the rest of this document