IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.11.2025 PRESENT:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE S.A. No. 727 of 2014

1.Raja Reddy, S/o.Ramareddy

2.Krishna Reddy, S/o.Ramareddy Both are residing at Madivanam Village, Nallur Post, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District. ...Appellant Vs.

1.Raj A.Mende S/o.Arjun Mende

2.Manoj A.Mende, S/o.Arjun Mende, Both are residing at No.45/1, Fare Field Layout, Race Course Road, Bangalore – 1.

3.Ramareddy, S/o.Munisamyreddy, Madivanam Village, Nallur Post, Hosur Taluk, Krishnagiri District.

4.Ravichandra Reddy, S/o.Nanja Reddy, HIG-96, Phase IV, Avalapalli, HUDCO, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

5.Gummareddy, S/o.Guruvareddy, No.2/894, Muneeswar Nagar, Bagalur Road, Hosur, Krishnagiri District.

6.Srinivasa Reddy, S/o.Ramareddy, No.775-B, Srinivasa Nilayam, Annaiappa Layout, Konena Agraharam, HAL Post, Bangalore, Karnataka State. ...Respondents PRAYER: Second Appeal filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.01.2013 passed in A.S.No.26 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Housr, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 30.07.2010, passed in O.S.No.104 of 2002, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Hosur.

For Appellants : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh, Advocate for R1, R2, R4 & R5.

R3 & R6 – served – No appearance.

J U D G M E N T

Heard.

2.This Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court, the Subordinate Judge, Hosur, in A.S. No.26 of 2010 dated 23.01.2013, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the District Munsif, Hosur, in O.S. No.104 of 2002 dated 30.07.2010.

3.For the sake of convenience parties are referred to by the rank as they nd rd stood before the trial court. The 2 and 3 plaintiffs are the appellants in this st th Second appeal. The 1 plaintiff stood transposed as 6 defendant in the suit during the pending suit.

4.The plaintiffs 2 and 3 having lost before both Courts, filed the suit O.S.

No.104 of 2002 seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the property comprised in S.Nos.458/2A1 and 459/3. The admitted position is that the suit properties were purchased by the 3rd defendant (father of the plaintiffs) under Ex. B3 dated 28.09.1959. The plaintiffs claimed that the purchase was made out of joint family funds and that, under an alleged oral partition in 1980, the suit properties were allotted to their share. They relied on UDR pattas (Ex. A1 and Ex.A2) to support the alleged oral partition.

5.The 3rd defendant, however, executed a settlement deed in favour of his daughter under Ex. B5, and subsequently, the 3rd defendant and his daughter jointly conveyed the property to defendants 1 and 2 under Ex. B4 dated

22.10.1986. Challenging these transactions, the suit came to be filed.

6.Both Courts below rejected the plaintiffs’ case after holding that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that the suit properties were joint family properties.

When a party alleges that a purchase in the name of the father was made out of joint family nucleus, the initial burden squarely lies on such party to establish:

i.what constituted the joint family nucleus, ii.what income was derived from it, iii.whether such income was sufficient to acquire the suit property after meeting family expenses, and iv.what properties, if any, were allotted to the father in the alleged oral partition.

7.The plaintiffs have not produced any evidence on these essential elements.

In the absence of proof of joint family nucleus, the inevitable conclusion is that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of the 3rd defendant. Once it is established that the suit properties are the self-acquired properties of the 3rd defendant, the plea of oral partition put forth by the plaintiffs, allegedly entered into with the 3rd defendant, collapses on its own and cannot stand, and therefore the settlement deed (Ex. B5) and subsequent sale deed (Ex. B4) executed by him and his daughter are valid and binding.

8.The relianc