IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presumption of a property being joint family property arises when there is sufficient joint nucleus capable of contributing to the purchase of the property. The onus then shifts to those claiming it to be self-acquired property to prove otherwise.

Headnote:
Joint Family Property - Partition - 1. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 6 - 2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - 3. Civil Procedure Code - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of a property purchased by his father, Late Rama Rao, claiming it was joint family property. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish the property was purchased out of joint family nucleus. On appeal, the court found that there was sufficient joint nucleus capable of contributing to the purchase of the property, and the plaintiff was entitled to a share in the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the property was purchased for the benefit of the joint family and that the plaintiff was entitled to a 1/10th share in the property. The court also held that the daughters of Late Rama Rao were entitled to a share in the property, and the suit was decreed accordingly.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit property is available for partition among the plaintiff and defendants? 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for partition and allocation of his share in suit property as claimant? 3. To what relief?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of the existence of a joint Hindu family. The person asserting that the property is joint family property has to prove such fact. If the person asserting proves that there is joint family nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, then there would be a presumption that the property is joint family property. The onus then shifts to other persons claiming it to be self-acquired property to prove that they purchased the property out of their own funds.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the suit was decreed, granting the plaintiff a 1/10th share in the property. The daughters of Late Rama Rao were also entitled to a share in the property. The part of the property in which constructions were raised by certain defendants was to be taken into consideration while working out equity in the final decree proceedings. There was no order as to costs.

JUDGMENT

1. The present appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and decree dtd. 24/6/2004 in O.S.No.279 of 2001 on the file of the XIII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby, the suit filed by the appellant herein for partition of suit property was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

2. The appellant herein is plaintiff and the respondents herein are defendants in the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, the present appeal is filed at the instance of plaintiff. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that premises bearing municipal Nos.10/4/771/1/A/1, 10/4/771/1/A/5, 10-4- 771/A/6 and 10/4/771/1/A/7 admeasuring 1130.80 sq. yards situated at Sriramnagar Colony, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, (hereinafter referred as 'suit property') was purchased by Late Sri Rama Rao, who is the father of the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 2 to 8 and husband of defendant No.1. Late Rama Rao had two wives and defendant No.1 is his second wife. The suit property was purchased in the name of defendant No.1 and 3 in order to avoid future claims from the children of his first wife. Originally, the said Rama Rao, started his practice as an advocate at Amalapuram; he then shifted to Eluru; subsequently to Guntur and lastly he shifted to Hyderabad. He worked as public prosecutor in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh and has good reputation. He was having ancestral property at Amalapuram and he also acquired house properties in Eluru and Guntur, out of ancestral funds. Rama Rao had six (6) sons and two (2) daughters from his first wife and he had eight (8) sons and two (2) daughters from his second wife.

4. It is the case of plaintiff that his father stopped his practice in the year 1974, as he was unwell. As the eldest brother of plaintiff i.e., defendant No.2 was employed in Indian Army, defendant No.3 who is second eldest son of Rama Rao, was managing the entire family after the their father fell sick. Defendant No.4 was married and he was staying with his wife in Himayathnagar, Hyderabad. The remaining sons of said Rama Rao, including plaintiff, were of young age and were students. The father of the plaintiff was having ancestral agricultural properties in Amalapuram and other places. Out of joint family property, he acquired houses at Eluru and Guntur. Subsequently, after shifting to Hyderabad, he was staying in Anuradha building in a quarter which was allotted to his eldest son i.e., defendant No.2, who was in Army and prior to that, they also resided in some private houses.

5. The pleadings of plaintiff show that his father settled the claims of his children from his first wife and they were well settled. In order to have a house for his second wife and children, he purchased the suit property in the name of defendant No.1 and 3 through registered sale deed dtd. 5/5/1975, for sale consideration of Rs.23,000.00. To purchase the land pertaining to suit property said Rama Rao sold his ancestral property at Amalapuram under Exs.A-1 to A-4. Subsequently, a part of said sale price was used by him for construction of ground and first floors. He also sold house properties situated in Eluru and Guntur under Exs.A-8 and A-9 and lands owned by him, situated in Gollapalem village under Exs.A-5 to A-7 for raising constructions in suit property. After completion of the said constructions, plaintiff along with his parents and defendant Nos. 3 to 5, 8 and 11 shifted to newly constructed house i.e., suit property. For the purpose of constructing second and third floors of the suit property, amounts recovered from one K. Sambasiva Rao and others were utilized, the said amounts were given as loan to said persons by father of plaintiff.

6. The plaintiff further pleaded that subsequently, defendant No.3 gifted a portion of the suit property in favour of defendant Nos. 5 and 7 and they have raised apartment