The presumption of joint family property in Hindu law is rebuttable, and the burden of proof rests on the one asserting self-acquisition, which was not met in this case.

1. This appeal by 7th defendant impugns the judgement dated 07.08.2003 of learned II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru in A.S.No.132 of 1999. 1st respondent was the sole plaintiff in O.S.No.287 of 1995. Respondent Nos.2 to 7 were defendant Nos. 1 to 6. The controversy among parties is about partition of an immovable property consisting of 223.8 square yards of site and a tiled house with front daba varandha situated in southern street of Eluru which is fully described in the schedule of the plaint filed in O.S.No.287 of 1995. 2. Sri D.Venkata Subba Rao and Smt. Nagaratnamma are wife and husband to each other. During their wedded life, they begot six sons and two daughters. One of his sons is Sri D. Chandrashekhar Rao. He filed O.S.No.287 of 1995 showing his father as 1st defendant and his brothers as defendant Nos. 2 to 6 and purchaser of the property as 7th defendant. He claimed that the plaint schedule property is joint family property. Seeking partition of it the relief he prayed in the suit reads as below: -

“This is a suit for partition of the plaint schedule property into 7 equal shares and for allotment of one such share to the plaintiff and to deliver possession of that share to the plaintiff and for declaration that the plaintiff is entitled for the S.A.No.13 of 2004 title of his 1/7th share in the plaint schedule property and for possession of the same, to pass a decree for rendition of account for future profits on the plaintiff’s 1/7th share and for costs”

1st defendant who is the father of the plaintiff filed his written statement along with one of his sons/ 4th defendant. All the plaint made averments were categorically denied and a clear assertion was made that the plaint schedule was the self- acquired property and no one could seek partition of it. They sought dismissal of the suit.

3. One of the brothers of the plaintiff who is 3rd defendant filed a separate written statement where he agreed with the case of the plaintiff and sought a decree by allowing the suit.

4. The plaint schedule property, even by the date of suit was sold by 1st defendant in favour of 7th defendant. Therefore, 7th defendant filed a separate written statement wherein he pleaded facts inconsonance with the facts pleaded by 1st defendant and claimed to be the bona fide purchaser of the plaint schedule property. She sought dismissal of the suit.

5. The learned trial court settled the following issues for trial: -

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for partition of suit schedule property into seven equal shares and for possession of one such share as prayed for? S.A.No.13 of 2004

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for rendition of accounts for future profits as prayed for?

4. To what relief? 6. At the trial, plaintiff testified as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A19. 1st defendant testified as DW.1. 7th defendant testified as DW.2. Two other witnesses testified as DW.3 and 4 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. After considering the entire evidence on record in the light of the rival contentions argued before him, the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru by a judgement dated 23.04.1999 found no merit in the suit and dismissed it. On assessment of evidence, he recorded that plaintiff failed to prove that the plaint schedule property is joint family property. He recorded that the evidence on record made it very clear that the plaint schedule property was the self-acquired property of 1st defendant. Therefore, 1st defendant was fully entitled to alienate the same and accordingly 7th defendant validly purchased it. As the property is not joint family property, plaint