Judgment:-The contesting defendants 2 to 5 are the appellants herein. The suit is filed by the respondent/plaintiff Kaliammal for partition of her 1/5th share in the suit schedules 1 to 3. The first defendant, by name, Karuppayee, the plaintiff Kaliayammal, 4th defendant Neeraru Ammal and the defendants 2 to 4 viz., Mariappan and Pothi are the wife, daughter and sons of one late Kalimuthu Thevar. The suit items 1 to 3 having been purchased under Ex.A1 (Ex.B.1), dated 07.09.1961, Ex.A2, dated 08.04.1961 and Ex.B3, dated 24.03.1969, in the name of Kalimuthu Thevar, the plaintiff claims the suit reliefs in the suit items in her capacity as one of the legal heirs of Kalimuthu Thevar on the ground that the suit items 1 to 3 are the self acquired property of Kalimuthu Thevar. 2. The suit is resisted by the contesting defendants by denying the self acquired nature of suit items. According to the contesting defendants, the suit items are purchased through the income from the joint family property, but purchased in the name of the father who was the eldest member of the family and hence, to be treated as joint family property consisting of father and sons. It is their further case that the suit properties even during the life time of Kalimuthu Thevar, are under the family arrangement, divided and allotted to the defendants 2 and 3. While the plaintiff was given one house and 32 cents of nanja land, the defendants are given suit items towards their share and since then the parties have been in possession and enjoyment of the respective properties allotted to them by effecting mutation and by residing therein as absolute owner thereof and the defendants thereafter sold the property to 5th defendant in such capacity. The contesting defendants also deny the plaintiff's right to claim to any share on the ground of ouster and adverse possession by claiming prescriptive title on the strength of their open, continuous and long uninterrupted possession adverse to the knowledge of all including that of the plaintiff. 3.Both the parties have, in order to substantiate their contention, examined the plaintiff and her witness and the defendants 2 and 5 and their witness as PW1 and PW2 and DW1 to DW3 and produced Exs.A1 to A13 and Exs.B1 to B13 documents respectively. 3.Both the parties have, in order to substantiate their contention, examined the plaintiff and her witness and the defendants 2 and 5 and their witness as PW1 and PW2 and DW1 to DW3 and produced Exs.A1 to A13 and Exs.B1 to B13 documents respectively. The trial court, after appreciation of entire evidence adduced before the same, arrived at a conclusion that the plaintiff discharged her initial burden of proving self acquired nature of the suit items on the basis of the sale deeds standing in the name of the father and thereafter burden shifts to the defendants to prove the existence of joint family nucleus and the manner of purchase of the suit properties from and out of income from the same joint family property but they have failed to substantiate the same by any material evidence whereas the evidence available proves that father Kalimuthu Thevar had been dealing with the same in his own capacity as absolute owner thereof with no intention at any point of time to throw the same into common hotchpot and the suit properties are hence self acquired properties of late Kalimuthu Thevar and the possession of one co-sharer is the possession on behalf of all the co-sharers and the plaintiff is deemed to be in joint possession of the suit items along with the contesting defendants and the plea of adverse possession to the knowledge of all including that of the plaintiff by all the contesting defendants for more than the statutory period is not made out. The trial court is also of the view that the mutation of the defendants names as owners in the revenue records, non participation of the plaintiff in the income of the property are not conclusive proof of plea of adverse possession and ouster. The properties having been purchased in the name of the father and having been enjoyed by the father as his self acquisition, he died intestate leaving behind the plaintiff and defendants, as his LRs to succeed to the suit items. The Trial Court has also found that the suit property is sold to the 5th defendant, after exchange of notices between the parties and the same would not hence bind the plaintiff's 1/5th share in the suit items. The Trial Court has also found that the suit property is sold to the 5th defendant, after exchange of notices between the parties and the same would not hence bind the plaintiff's 1/5th share in the suit items. Accordingly, the trial court declared the plaintiff's right to 1/5th share in the suit items 1 to 3, but restricted the right of the plaintiff to claim partition by metes and bounds and separate possession of suit 3rd item house property subject to Section 23(1) of Hindu Succession Act. 4. The trial court, on the basis of the findings so rendered, granted preliminary decree for partition and separate possession of the plaintiff's 1/5th share and granted declaratory decree that the sale deed dated 06.07.1994 executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the 5th defendant in respect of items 1 to 3 as null and void. Aggrieved against the same, the defendants 1 to 5 preferred AS.No.82 of 2005. The lower appellate court also on the basis of the available evidence agreed with the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, this second appeal by the contesting defendants 2 to 5 before this Court. 5. This Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law. "Whether the judgment and decree of the Court below is erroneous on account of its casting the burden of proof with regard to joint family property on the appellants when it is the admitted case of the respondent that the status is that of joint family status?" 6. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides. 7. As already referred to, all the suit items are admittedly purchased under separate sale deeds in the name of the father between 1961 and 1962. The plaintiff, who is one of the daughters of the late Kalimuthu Thevar claims suit reliefs for partition of her 1/5 share in the suit items and declaration against validity, legality and binding nature of impugned sale executed by the defendants 1 to 3 in favour of the 5th defendant on the ground that the properties are the self acquired property of the father. The suit reliefs are seriously resisted by the wife, other daughter and sons of late Kalimuthu Thevar and the purchaser of the suit items 1 and 2 from them on the following grounds: (i)The properties are joint family property consisting of father and two sons, having been purchased out of income from joint family properties. (ii)There is an earlier family arrangement between the parties in and under which the plaintiff is given separate property and the defendants 2 and 3 are given suit items and since then, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same, and their possession in such that is to be construed as adverse and the plaintiff is totally out of possession and did not participate in the income of the same and is deprived of her right by way ouster and the defendants acquired prescriptive title by adverse possession and ouster. 8. As already referred to, both the courts below have arrived at concurrent findings that the defendants failed to prove their defence regarding the existence of joint family nucleus and manner of purchase of suit items from and out of income from the joint family property and plea of adverse possession and ouster against the plaintiff. 9.Both the courts below have before doing so cast the initial burden on the plaintiff and thereafter shifted the burden upon the contesting defendants to prove the nature of the acquisition of the suit items as pleaded by them and on the failure of the defendants to discharge their burden negatived their entire defence and found the plaintiff's claim legally acceptable on the basis of evidence adduced on her side. Though the appellants/unsuccessful defendants seriously contested the correctness of the findings rendered by the trial court as confirmed by the appellate court on more than one ground, the only substantial question of law raised by this Court in this Second Appeal is regarding the onus of burden cast upon the defendants to prove their defence. 10. It may be true that the plaintiff who comes to court has to establish the suit claim and to succeed or fail on the strength of his or her own case. 10. It may be true that the plaintiff who comes to court has to establish the suit claim and to succeed or fail on the strength of his or her own case. However, When the dispute is regarding the nature of acquisition of the properties in question as in the present case, the legal presumption is rightly drawn on the basis of the sale deeds, in support of the plaintiff's claim about the self acquired nature of the property and the plaintiff is thus held to have discharged her initial burden of proving her claim by adducing evidence by way of registered sale deeds in the name of the father. Thereafter the burden shifts to the party who disputes such self acquired nature of the suit items and he is to prove the existence of joint family nucleus and sufficiency or surplus of the income from such joint family property to make purchase from and out of the same. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, the plea regarding adverse possession and ouster having been based on facts and having been decided on the basis of available evidence and having not been challenged herein on any legally valid ground of perversity etc., no substantial questions of law arise against the findings so rendered on other aspects. 11. Though, it is seriously contested by the learned counsel for the contesting defendants that the course adopted by the Courts below in calling upon the defendants to establish their defence and to negative their defence on the ground of their failure to do so is legally erroneous and unsustainable. It is seriously contended by them that the courts below committed glaring error in casting the burden upon the defendants instead of the plaintiff and the same has resulted in serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice. In my considered view such stand raised on the side of the contesting defendants is liable to be negatived in view of the well settled principles of law on this aspect. 12. Our High Court and other High Courts have in the following authorities fortified the legality and propriety of such course adopted and findings rendered by the courts below on the question of burden of proof. 12. Our High Court and other High Courts have in the following authorities fortified the legality and propriety of such course adopted and findings rendered by the courts below on the question of burden of proof. (i) 2004 (4) CTC 208 - R.Deivanai Ammal and another V. G.Meenakshi Ammal and others; (ii) 2001 (1) CTC 132 - Ramaswamy and another V. R.Murugan; and (iii) AIR 198 2 Delhi 520 - Nanak Chand and others V. Chander Kishore and others. 13. The facts of case dealt with by the Division Bench of our High Court in the judgment reported in 2004 (4) CTC 208 is more or less identical as that of the case in hand. In the other case the plaintiffs claim partition by treating the suit property as self acquired property of father. Whereas, the contesting defendants opposed the relief by denying its self acquired nature and pleaded that the suit property is joint family property of the father and sons. 14. The Division Bench of our High Court, headed by His Lordship P.Sathasivam,J., as his Lordship then was, while considering the first point regarding the nature of the suit properties whether self acquired or ancestral is pleased to observe as follows: "Under the Hindu Law it is only when a person alleging that the property is ancestral property proves that there was a nucleus by means of which other property may have been acquired, that the burden is shifted on the party alleging self-acquisitions to prove that the property was acquired without any aid from the family estate. In other words the mere existence of a nucleus however small or insignificant is not enough. It should be shown to be of such a character as could reasonably be expected to lead the acquisition of the property alleged to be part of the joint family property. Even if the joint family nucleus is so established, the prescription that the accretions made by the manager or the purchases made by him should be deemed to be from and out of such a nucleus does not arise, if there is no proof that such nucleus of the joint family is not an income-yielding apparatus. Even if the joint family nucleus is so established, the prescription that the accretions made by the manager or the purchases made by him should be deemed to be from and out of such a nucleus does not arise, if there is no proof that such nucleus of the joint family is not an income-yielding apparatus. The proof required is very strict and the burden is on the person who sets up a case that the property in the name of a female member of the family or in the name of the manager or any other coparcener is to be treated as joint family property. There should be proof of the availability of such surplus income or joint family nucleus on the date of such acquisitions or purchases. 15.It is well established principle of law that where a party claims that any particular item of property is joint family property, the burden of proving that it is so rests on the party asserting it. 16.While considering the term 'nucleus' it should always be borne in mind that such nucleus has to be established as a matter of fact and the existence of such nucleus cannot normally be presumed or assumed on probabilities. The extent of the property, the income from the property, the normal liability with which such income would be charged and the net available surplus of such joint family property do all enter into computation for the purpose of assessing the content of the reservoir of such a nucleus from which alone it could, with reasonable certainty, be said that the other joint family properties have been purchased unless a strong link or nexus is established between the available surplus income and the alleged joint family properties. The person who comes to Court with such bare allegations without any substantial proof to back it up should fail. 17.It is also a well-established doctrine of Hindu Law that property which was originally self-acquired may become joint property if it has been voluntarily thrown by the coparcener into the joint stock with the intention of abandoning all separate claims upto it. But the question whether the coparcener has done so or not is entirely a question of fact to be decided in the light of all the circumstances of the case. But the question whether the coparcener has done so or not is entirely a question of fact to be decided in the light of all the circumstances of the case. It must be established that there was a clear intention on the part of the coparcener to waive his separate rights and such an intention will not be inferred from acts which may have been done from kindness or affection. The important point to keep in mind is that the separate property of a Hindu coparcener ceases to be his separate property and acquires the characteristics of his joint family or ancestral property, not by mere act of physical mixing with his joint family or ancestral property, but by his own volition and intention by his waiving or surrendering his special right in it as separate property. Such intention can be discovered only from his words or from his acts and conduct. 18.The above said principles (paras 13 to 18) emerge from the following decisions : (i)C.V.Vythinatha Aiyar V. C.V.Varadaraja Iyer and others, 1938 (1) MLJ 216 ; (ii)Kandaswami Chettiar V. Fopal Chettiar 1975 (2) MLJ 184 ; (iii)R.Selvaraj V. R.Radhakrishna AIR 1976 Mad. 156 ; (iv)P.Kamakshi Ammal V. P.Venkatesan 1986 (1) MLJ 438 ; (v)Ranganayaki Ammal V. Srinivasan 1978 (1) MLJ 56 ; (vi)G.Narayana Raju V. Chamaraju AIR 1968 SC 1276 ." 15. The Division Bench of our High Court in the above case by casting the burden upon the defendants, negatived the defence on their failure to prove the existence of joint family nucleus, and held that the properties purchased under the sale deeds in question were self acquired properties of late father and decreed the suit for partition. 16. In 2001 (1) CTC 132 similar question arose before the learned single judge of our High Court. Both the courts below recorded concurrent findings to the effect that the plaint schedule properties belong to joint family and when the same was questioned before our High Court by way of Second Appeal the learned single judge held in para 23 as follows : "23. It is true that the proof of the existence of the joint family did not lead to the presumption that the properties held by any member of the family was joint, and the burden rested upon the party asserting that any item of properties was joint to establish the said fact. It is true that the proof of the existence of the joint family did not lead to the presumption that the properties held by any member of the family was joint, and the burden rested upon the party asserting that any item of properties was joint to establish the said fact. But in the given case, where it is established that the family possessed some joint family properties, which from its nature and relative value might have formed the nucleus, from which the property in question might have been acquired, the burden then would shift to the party alleging self acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property." In the case decided by the learned single judge the properties are held to be joint family on the basis of the evidence to show that there was joint family and the joint family owned ancestral properties and the joint family derived income out of those properties etc., 17. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court has in para 15 held as follows : “15.Now, as said in Rukhmabai ( AIR 1960 SC 335 ) (supra) there is a presumption that a family is joint but there is no presumption that any property whether movable or immovable, held by a family property. The burden lies upon the person who asserts that a particular property is joint family property to establish that fact. But if he proves that there was sufficient joint family nucleus from and out of which, the said property could have been acquired, the burden shifts to the member of the family setting up the claim that it is his personal property to establish that the said property has been acquired without any assistance from the joint family property”. 18. If the views expressed by our High Court and Delhi High Court is applied to the facts of the present case it would compel this court to concur with the findings of the trial court as confirmed by the lower appellate court. Both the courts below have rightly directed the defendants to prove their defence and to substantiate their claim in order to deny the right of the plaintiff. Here is the case wherein both the plaintiff and the defendants produced oral and documentary evidence on their side. Both the courts below have rightly directed the defendants to prove their defence and to substantiate their claim in order to deny the right of the plaintiff. Here is the case wherein both the plaintiff and the defendants produced oral and documentary evidence on their side. The sale deeds executed in respect of the suit items by third parties in favour of father Kalimuthu Thevar are produced on the plaintiff side. On the other hand except examining the defendants 2 and 5 and their witnesses as DW1 to DW3 neither of the defendants adduced any other satisfactory evidence to prove material facts constituting the defence raised by the defendants as if there existed joint family nucleus and joint family properties were such that it yield surplus income sufficient enough to purchase the suit items. On the other hand, DW2 who is none else than the father in law of the 2nd defendant has in the course of his cross examination admitted that the properties are purchased by Kalimuthu Thevar. Thus there is no iota of evidence in support of the defendants claim regarding acquisition of suit items by father and sons. The courts below after analysing the entire facts and circumstances and evidence, rightly upheld the plaintiff's claim for her share in the suit property. The well considered judgment of the courts below, in my considered view, warrants no interference and the substantial question of law is thus answered against the defendants. 19. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. Having regard to the relationship between the parties. No order as to costs.