1. The preliminary decree in a suit for partition is under challenge by the second defendant.

2. The plaint schedule properties belonged to late Sri. Kuthupalakkal Sankarankutty. The first defendant is his wife, and the plaintiffs and the other defendants are their children. Sankarankutty died intestate. The plaintiffs seek for partition of the properties.

3. The appellant / second defendant alone contested the suit. The other defendants remained ex parte.

4. The appellant / second defendant contended that he had expended money for the construction of the residential house situated in the plaint schedule property. He further contended that he had provided funds for the marriage of his sisters. On such plea, he sought for reservation and allotment of the house to his share on excluding it from valuation.

5. The trial court found that the appellant / second defendant failed to adduce any evidence in support of his claim of reservation, and accordingly passed a preliminary decree for partition.

6. We have heard the learned counsel on either side.

7. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the plaint schedule properties belonged to their predecessor, Sri. Kuthupalakkal Sankarankutty. The quantum of shares of the parties, as claimed in the plaint, is also not in dispute.

8. The only contention of the appellant / second defendant is that he had expended money for construction of the residential house situated in the plaint schedule property and for the marriage of his sisters. On the said ground, he claimed reservation and allotment of the house in the plaint schedule property excluding it from valuation. As rightly noticed by the trial court, when the second defendant pleaded a right of reservation on the ground that he had expended money for construction of the house, the burden was on him to prove the same. Not only that no documentary evidence was adduced by him to substantiate his contentions, but he even failed to mount the witness box. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to support his claim, the trial court was right in having rejected the claim.
The judgment and decree of the trial court warrants no interference.
The appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.