The presumption of self-acquisition does not apply without evidence of prior partition; the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove exclusive ownership.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant.

2. This appeal is against the concurrent finding in a suit for injunction. The suit is filed by one Chikkanarayanappa against two persons namely B.N. Ashwathappa and K.G. Subramani. Defendants are children of plaintiff's elder brother.

3. The plaintiff filed the suit for injunction on the premise that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property pursuant to registered sale deed dated 22.11.1984 in respect of suit property bearing survey No.128 of Bommenahalli village, Gowribidanur Taluk.

4. The defendants took a contention that the suit property is the joint family property and the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the property and it was partitioned after the property was purchased pursuant to a palupatti between the plaintiffs and the defendants.

5. The trial Court did not accept the plaintiff's contention that prior to the purchase of the suit property, there was a partition between the plaintiff and his brother. The trial Court concluded that at the time of purchase, the family was joint and later, there was some arrangement among the family members to divide the properties. The First Appellate Court also concurred with the finding of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

6. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgments and decrees, the plaintiff is before this Court in second appeal.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that since registered sale deed dated 22.11.1984 is in the name of the plaintiff, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court could not have held that the suit property is the joint family property. It is her contention that the finding relating to the joint family property recorded by the trial Court and the First Appellate Court is primarily based on the xerox copy of a palupatti and in the absence of original palupatti being produced, the Court could not have held that the suit property is the joint family property based on the xerox copy of the palupatti. It is also her further contention that there is a presumption in favour of the self acquisition whenever the revenue records and the sale deed are in the name of a person, when the presumption is in favour of the plaintiff, the burden was on the defendants to establish that the properties acquired through the joint family funds, and said burden was not discharged.

8. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records.

9. After going through the judgment of the trial Court as well as the judgment of the First Appellate Court, it is noticed that the trial Court has recorded a finding that there is no proof relating to the partition between the plaintiff and defendants prior to the purchase of the suit property in the year 1984. The plaintiff contended that before the property was purchased on 22.11.1984, there was a oral partition between himself and his brother. Said partition is not established.

10. It is also noticed that the defendants have produced a xerox copy of the palupatti and have taken a stand that original palupatti is in the custody of the plaintiff. To the said palupatti, the plaintiff has taken a defence that his signature is taken while he was admitted in hospital.

11. What is apparent is the signature on the palupatti is admitted. Thus, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish that his signature was taken when he was in hospital and he was not in a position to understand the consequence.

12. After going through the records, it is noticed that the plaintiff has not led the evidence of any independent witness to substantiate his contention that the signatur