Judgment : 1. The plaintiff in O.S.No.161 of 1997 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Chengam, is the appellant. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 28.02.2011 and the appeal filed in A.S.No.15 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tiruvannamalai, was also dismissed on 07.02.2012. Aggrieved by the same, this second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant. 2. The case of the plaintiff/appellant is as follows : The plaintiff, defendant and their father Ganesa Gounder were constituting the members of a Hindu Joint Family and the said Ganesa Gounder got the suit properties and other properties in an oral partition that took place between him and his brother Arumuga Gounder in the year 1965 and he also purchased Item Nos.11 and 12 of the suit properties from his brother Arumuga Gounder in the name of defendant/respondent for a valuable consideration under the registered sale deed dated 25.04.1969 and the properties involved in item nos.11 and 12 were treated as joint family properties and, in the year 1980, there was an oral partition between the father/Ganes Gounder and two his sons, namely, plaintiff and defendant, and in the said oral partition, the joint family properties were divided and the suit properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff and some other properties to the defendant. Ever since then, the plaintiff is in enjoyment of the suit properties and as the defendant attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff by questioning his title, the suit was filed for declaration and injuction. The respondent / defendant contested the suit stating that himself, his brother-Annamalai and their father constituted a joint family, but, denied the claim that Item Nos.11 and 12 were purchased from Arumuga Gounder by his father in the name of the defendant and that properties were also joint family properties. He admitted that there was an oral partition in the year 1980 and in that oral partition, only joint family properties were divided and the suit properties were not allotted to the share of the plaintiff. The suit properties are separate properties of the defendant and the same were never the subject matter of the oral partition. He admitted that there was an oral partition in the year 1980 and in that oral partition, only joint family properties were divided and the suit properties were not allotted to the share of the plaintiff. The suit properties are separate properties of the defendant and the same were never the subject matter of the oral partition. The self-acquired properties of the defendant were not included in the oral partition and the defendant purchased the properties in (a) Survey Nos.173/4, 173/5, 67 cents and 33 cents respectively, from his uncle, (b) Survey No.169/5-30 cents from one Gopal Gounder on 25.07.1974 and (c) Survey No.172/1-78 cents and Survey No.172/3-56 cents from Rajamanickka Gounder and Govindasamy Gounder on 17.02.1975. Those properties being the separate properties of the defendant, in the plaint, the same were included by giving sub-division numbers. Therefore, it was contended that the plaintiff has no title or possession over the self-acquired properties of the defendant. 3. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court. "i. Whether there was an oral partition among the plaintiff, defendant and their father. ii. Whether the suit properties are the separate properties of the defendant. iii. Whether the plaintiff perfected title by adverse possession. iv. Whether the suit properties belongs to the plaintiff. v. To what other relief he is entitled." The issues 1 and 2 were clubbed together and the trial Court held that though there was an oral partition in the year 1980 among the plaintiff, defendant and their father, the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit properties purchased in the name of the defendant, were the properties purchased from and out of the income of the joint family. The trial Court also held that the defendant also failed to prove that from his separate income, the suit properties are purchased. The trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit properties were allotted to him under the oral partition, though there was an oral partition in the year 1980 between the parties. The trial Court answered issue no.3 against the plaintiff holding that no evidence was let in to prove that the plaintiff perfected his title to the suit properties. The trial Court answered issue no.3 against the plaintiff holding that no evidence was let in to prove that the plaintiff perfected his title to the suit properties. Issue no.4 was also answered against the plaintiff holding that having regard to the answer given to issue nos.1 and 2, the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of declaration and finally, the suit was dismissed. 4. The lower appellate Court framed the following issues for consideration. "i. Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction is right. ii. Whether the appeal is to be allowed". The lower appellate Court held that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove what are the properties allotted to Ganesa Gounder in the partition that took place between him and his brother in the year 1965 and in the absence of particulars of those properties, it cannot be decided that the suit properties were purchased from and out of a income of those properties. The lower appellate Court further held that the appellant failed to prove that the suit properties were purchased out of the joint family income and that the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 cannot be considered to find out whether the properties were ancestral properties or separate properties. The lower appellate Court found that though it was admitted that there was an oral partition in the year 1980 between the parties, the appellant failed to prove what are properties that were allotted to the respondent / defendant under the oral partition and what are the properties that were allotted to him under such oral partition. The lower appellate Court also held that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the suit properties were purchased from and out of the income of the joint family properties and there is no necessity for the defendant to prove that the properties are purchased by him from a separate income. As the appellant failed to prove the details of the oral partition and various properties allotted to either parties under the oral partition of the year 1980, the suit for declaration and injunction is not maintainable and accordingly, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 5. As the appellant failed to prove the details of the oral partition and various properties allotted to either parties under the oral partition of the year 1980, the suit for declaration and injunction is not maintainable and accordingly, the lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent / defendant admitted the oral partition of the year 1980 and also admitted that certain items in the suit properties are his separate properties and he did not claim the entire properties and therefore, the Courts below committed serious error in dismissing the suit and that the Courts below ought to have granted the decree in respect of those properties which were not claimed by the respondent/defendant as his separate properties. She further submitted that the plaintiff/appellant filed Ex.A2-patta, Exs.A3 to A5-kist receipts, Exs.A6 and A8-chitta and Ex.A7-adangal, to prove that he is in possession of the properties and no document was filed by the defendant/respondent to prove his possession and that the Courts below ought to have presumed that the plaintiff/appellant is in possession of the properties pursuant to the oral partition that took place in the year 1980 and that was not properly considered. She has also submitted that the defendant/respondent only questioned the suit Item Nos.11 and 12 as his separate properties and the respondent / defendant did not question the character of other properties and therefore, the Courts below erred in dismissing the suit in its entirety instead of decreeing the suit in respect of item nos.11 and 12. 6. I am unable to accept the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. According to me, no question of law much less substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. The appellant stated that, in the year 1980, there was an oral partition among the plaintiff, defendant and their father and in that oral partition, the suit properties were allotted to the share of the plaintiff and some other properties were allotted to the share of the defendant. He also pleaded that after 1980, there was no joint family between the plaintiff and defendant. He also pleaded that after 1980, there was no joint family between the plaintiff and defendant. The defendant/respondent also admitted the oral partition, but, contended that in that oral partition that took place in the year 1980, the joint family properties were divided and the suit properties, which are his self-acquired properties, were not the subject matter of the oral partition, as the same belong to the defendant, therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the same. The plaintiff also stated in the plaint that his father Ganesa Gounder purchased Item Nos.11 and 12 of the suit properties from his brother Arumuga Gounder in the name of the defendant for a valuable consideration on 25.04.1969 and also marked registration copy of the sale deed, namely, Ex.A1. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court rightly held that, without proving that the joint family possessed sufficient properties, which yielded income for the purchase of item nos.11 and 12, it cannot be presumed that item nos.11 and 12 were purchased from and out of the joint family income in the name of the defendant/respondent. 7. Further, the properties purchased in the name of the defendant are detailed in the written statement filed by the defendant, wherein, he stated that he purchased the properties in Survey Nos.173/4, 173/5, 169/5, 172/1 and 172/3 from various persons under various sale deeds and those survey nos. were sub divided and in the plaint schedule, the plaintiff assigned sub-division nos. for those properties. Confirming all these aspects, the Courts below rightly held that the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the properties were purchased from and out of the joint family income. Though it is stated that the suit properties were allotted to the plaintiff and other properties were allotted to the defendant, the Courts below rightly held that the plaintiff has not given any detail about the properties which were divided between the brothers, namely, plaintiff and the defendant in the oral partition of the year 1980 and which properties were allotted to the defendant under the oral partition. Therefore, in the absence of any such substantive proof that, in the oral partition, certain properties were allotted to the defendant and likewise to the plaintiff, it cannot be just presumed that the suit properties were allotted to the plaintiff under the oral partition, when the same was disputed by the defendant. Therefore, in the absence of any such substantive proof that, in the oral partition, certain properties were allotted to the defendant and likewise to the plaintiff, it cannot be just presumed that the suit properties were allotted to the plaintiff under the oral partition, when the same was disputed by the defendant. These aspects have been righty considered by the Courts below. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 8. In fine, the second appeal stands dismissed for the aforesaid reasons. No Costs.