The burden of proof for establishing joint family property lies with the plaintiff, and without sufficient evidence, the claims for partition may be rejected.

JUDGMENT :

K.SUJANA, J.

Since the lis and parties involved in these appeal suits are same, these matters were heard together and are disposed of by way of this common judgment.

2. The appellant in AS.No.890 of 2010 is plaintiff and the appellants in AS.No.839 of 2010 are defendant Nos.1 and 2. Both the appeals are filed challenging the judgment dated 31.07.2010 passed in OS.No.15 of 2006 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in OS.No.15 of 2006.

4. The brief facts of the averments made before the trial Court are that the plaintiff - Chilukuri Vinoda, filed a suit for partition and separate possession against her two brothers, Madduri Srinivas Reddy and Madduri Ravinder Reddy/ defendant Nos.1 and 2, and her mother/defendant No.3, in respect of several immovable properties situated in Gajwel and Bayyaram villages, described under Schedules A to H. She contended that the entire suit schedule properties were acquired by her late father M. Laxma Reddy, a Government school teacher who passed away on 23.10.2004, and that she was therefore entitled to a one-third share as a legal heir. Following the death of her mother/defendant No.3 during the pendency of the suit, she amended the plaint to seek a corresponding share in her mother's estate as well.

5. Defendants 1 and 2, through their written statement, opposed the claims of plaintiff and asserted that a substantial portion of the properties were acquired by them individually after discontinuing their education and initiating various businesses including Srilatha Engineering Company, Srilatha Pesticides, Parameshwari Wines, and cotton trade. They contended that some of the assets, although registered in the names of their parents, were actually purchased using personal earnings, loans, and support from in-laws. Additionally, they relied on Will dated 01-03-2006 (Ex.B1) allegedly executed by their mother, which bequeathed her properties exclusively to them.

6. During trial, the plaintiff got examined herself as PW1 and reiterated that all properties belonged to her father. Her paternal uncle was examined as PW2 and claimed that some assets were ancestral while others were self-acquired by the deceased. During cross-examination, the plaintiff conceded that her father had a limited income, was employed as a Government teacher, and had no other known sources of earnings. She also acknowledged that her brothers were running independent businesses, had assets such as a tractor since the year 1994, and had been financially self-sufficient since the early 1990s.

7. In support of her case, the plaintiff marked Exhibits A1 to A25. These included vital documents such as the death certificate of the deceased father (Ex.A1), legal heir certificate (Ex.A2), and market value certificates (Exs.A3 and A4) for the suit properties. She also submitted certified copies of pahani records (Exs.A5 to A19) for agricultural lands spanning 1985 to 2002, and various ownership certificates (Exs.A20 to A23). To substantiate her claim over the wine businesses listed in Schedule H, she relied on a registered sale deed (Ex.A24) and Excise Department proceedings (Ex.A25).

8. The defendants marked Exhibits B1 to B18, primarily consisting of registered sale deeds, ownership documents, and the contested Will. Ex.B1 was the Will deed allegedly executed by defendant No.3 on 01-03-2006, bequeathing her assets to defendants 1 and 2. Exs.B2 to B9 were sale deeds relating t