JUDGMENT This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-12-1994 passed in 0.S.No.150 of 1988 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Ongole. 2. The appellant is the second plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit O.S. No.150 of 1988 filed for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. During the pendency of the suit the first plaintiff died and the second plaintiff was the only beneficiary in respect of the suit schedule property vide settlement deed executed .by the first plaintiff. The second plaintiff continued the suit. The trial Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the suit holding that the suit schedule property is the joint family property and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled for declaration of title. Aggrieved by the same this appeal has been preferred. 3. It is the case of the first plaintiff that the suit schedule property, a residential house situated at Lambadi street, Ward No.2, Block No.6, Town Survey No.214 at Ongole is his self-acquired property having purchased the site under registered sale deed - Ex.A-1, dated 24-07-1934 from his self-accumulated funds and thereafter a house was constructed from his own means. It is stated that the defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of the first plaintiff; D-4 is the widow of the son of the first plaintiff; D-5 and D-6 are the issues of the deceased son of the first plaintiff and the fourth defendant; D-7 is the widow of deceased D-2 and D-8 and D-9 are the children of D-2. The second plaintiff is the son of first defendant. 4. It is the case of the second plaintiff that the first plaintiff is his paternal grand father and the first plaintiff acquired the suit schedule house from out of his own earnings. The second defendant was only permitted to live in the suit schedule house till he constructed a house and the second defendant agreed to pay an amount of RS.30/- for the maintenance of the first plaintiff, but the second defendant failed to pay the said amount and also did not look after his father and consequently the first plaintiff mortgaged the house to the Ongole Co-operative Urban Bank and obtained a loan of Rs.5,000/-. The second plaintiff looked after the first plaintiff and discharged the loan. The second plaintiff looked after the first plaintiff and discharged the loan. Therefore, out of love and affection the first plaintiff settled the said property under Exs.A-2 to A-4 in favour of the second plaintiff. Therefore, it is the case of the second plaintiff that he is entitled for declaration of title and recovery of possession. 5. It is the case of the defendants that the first plaintiff and his brother owned a joint nucleus and their father was having joint family properties. After selling the property under Ex. B-1 the site under EX.A-1 was purchased and after selling the joint family property under Ex. B-2 the house was constructed in EX.A-1 site. The first plaintiff being the karta of the joint family property the sale deeds were obtained in his name and the taxes were also paid in his favour. Therefore, the suit schedule house is a joint family property and the first plaintiff has no right, title and authority to settle the said property in favour of the second plaintiff. 6. The trial Court considered the main issue as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of title and consequential possession as prayed for. 7. During the pendency of the suit the first plaintiff died and the second plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. It is the case of the second plaintiff that the first plaintiff hired a bullock cart and out of the income earned from the bullock cart only the first plaintiff purchased site under EX.A-1 with his own earnings and thereafter constructed a house in the said site. Admittedly, P.W.1 has no personal knowledge either with regard to the hiring of bullock cart or with regard to the personal earnings of the first plaintiff. Absolutely no documentary or oral evidence has been adduced in proof of the contention that the first plaintiff without touching the nucleus of the joint family property earned certain income and purchased EX.A-1 site. As a matter of fact, P.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted that there are certain joint family properties situated at Santhanuthalapadu. 8. It is also pertinent to note that EX.B-1 property was sold by the first plaintiff and his brother, which goes to show that Ex. B-1 is the joint family property and the same was sold under EX.B-1 for Rs.50/-. 9. 8. It is also pertinent to note that EX.B-1 property was sold by the first plaintiff and his brother, which goes to show that Ex. B-1 is the joint family property and the same was sold under EX.B-1 for Rs.50/-. 9. It the specific case of the defendants that the first plaintiff is the Karta of the joint family properties and the property under EX.B-1 is income deriving agricultural land situated at Santhanuthalapadu. The sons of the first plaintiff are barbers and each one of them was contributing to the joint family nucleus: The first plaintiff sold the property under Ex. B-1 and purchased the site under EX.A-1 and out of the sale proceeds of Ex. B-2 the first plaintiff constructed a house in EX.A-1 site. Therefore, it is the case of the defendants that unless the first plaintiff establishes his right, claim and title over the suit schedule property and that the same is his self acquired property; he cannot have any right to settle the said property in favour of the second plaintiff. 10. Therefore, the legality and validity of Exs.A-2 to A-4 depend upon the establishment of the right of the first plaintiff over the suit schedule property. No independent evidence has been adduced with regard to the self acquired earnings of the first plaintiff and the pleadings and the documents Exs.B-1 and B-2 read with EX.A-2 (sic.A-1) go to show that the first plaintiff purchased the site under EX.A-1 after selling the property under Ex. B-1 out of the joint family nucleus and after selling the property under Ex. B-2 out of the joint family properties, the house was constructed. As the site was purchased by the first plaintiff obviously, the property stands in the name of first plaintiff and the taxes were paid in the name of first plaintiff but all the tax receipts were in the possession of the defendants and the defendants alone filed the tax receipts, the demand notices etc, which goes to show that the defendants were residing in the said house as members of the joint family only. 11. Merely because all the members of the joint family reside together it cannot be presumed that the properties are joint family properties and merely because all the members of the joint family reside separately it cannot also be presumed that the properties are not joint family properties. 11. Merely because all the members of the joint family reside together it cannot be presumed that the properties are joint family properties and merely because all the members of the joint family reside separately it cannot also be presumed that the properties are not joint family properties. If there is any nucleus of the joint family properties the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the said properties are not joint family properties but they are self acquired properties. Though it was pleaded in the plaint that the suit schedule property was self-acquired property and the first plaintiff acquired the same through his personal earnings, the first plaintiff failed to prove the same by adducing any cogent evidence. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the first plaintiff was not having any independent income to purchase the site and construct a house and he has no right to settle the suit schedule property in favour of the second plaintiff. 12. However, the learned counsel for the appellant/second plaintiff submits that the first plaintiff obtained a loan of Rs.5,000/- from the Ongole Co-operative Urban Bank and the same has been discharged by the second plaintiff and out of love and affection the first plaintiff executed Exs.A-2 to A-4 settlement deeds in favour of the second plaintiff and the defendants cannot question the same. 13. I am of the opinion that the settlor has no right, title and authority to settle the said issues (sic. house) when the defendants are in possession of the said property and the settlement deeds only came to light during the pendency of the suit only, as such these documents need not be questioned. Insofar as the loan is concerned, it is the specific plea of the defendants that they used to contribute for the medical expenses of the first plaintiff as he was not in a sound and disposing state of mind and suffering from mental disease. 14. Even if the second plaintiff establishes that he has discharged the said loan, I am of the opinion that he will not get any right for declaration of title and recovery of possession, as there cannot be any charge for the said discharge of the amount over the suit schedule property. However, there is no alternative prayer for recovery of said discharged amount. However, there is no alternative prayer for recovery of said discharged amount. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the second plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.