The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish the ancestral nature of properties in a partition suit, and documents deemed irrelevant or inadmissible do not support the claim.

C O M M O N O R D E R

The plaintiff in O.S.No.317 of 2019 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Court, Madurai, has filed the present Civil Revision Petition challenging the dismissal of his applications filed to reopen, recall of P.W.1 and to mark certain documents.

2. As per the plaint averments, the plaintiff and the defendants are siblings. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's father and his brothers have entered into a registered partition deed on 30.04.1956. The property that was allotted to the share of the plaintiff's father was partitioned among the family members under a registered partition deed, dated 28.03.1970. It is the further the case of the plaintiff that some of the properties that were left out in the partition deed, dated 30.04.1956 were again partitioned between the plaintiff's father and his brothers under a registered partition deed dated 14.07.2014. These properties that were allotted to the plaintiff's father under the partition deed dated 14.07.2014 were bequeathed by way of a Will by the father in favour of defendants 1 and 2 under a registered Will dated 11.01.2018.

3. According to the plaintiff, the property that was allotted to the father in the partition deed dated 14.07.2014 carries the character of ancestral property and therefore, the plaintiff's father is not having any right to execute the Will. Therefore, the present suit for partition has been filed. When the suit was posted for arguments, the present applications have been filed to reopen, recall of P.W.1 and to mark certain documents from the I.T Department to establish that the Hindu Undivided Family was available at the time of death of the father. These applications came to be dismissed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions have been filed.

4. According to the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner, PAN Card reflects that HUF is available including the father and plaintiff and the defendants. According to the plaintiff, he has got certain documents from the I.T Department. He would likely to rely upon a letter to show that it written by the plaintiff's father to the plaintiff's son to establish the fact that HUF is available.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that as on today, the suit is posted for reply arguments on the side of the plaintiff. These documents are not admissible in evidence, in view of the fact that they are Xerox copies. Further it is established that relying upon the partition deed, the plaintiff has already sold away the properties through Exs.P1 to P.7 and therefore, these applications have been filed only to drag on the proceedings.

6. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

7. The entire case of the plaintiff rests upon the registered partition deed, dated 14.07.2014 which is said to have been entered into between the plaintiff's father and his siblings. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the property allotted under the partition deed carries the character of ancestral nature and therefore, the present suit for partition has been filed. In such circumstances, the entire burden will be upon the plaintiff to establish that the properties carry the character of ancestral nature and they are liable to be partitioned. Therefore, the documents from the I.T Department are not relevant to dispose of the suit. In such circumstances, there are no merits in these Civil Revision Petitions.

8. Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.