ORDER : Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2015 passed by the Additional District Judge, Bemetara, district Bemetara in Civil Suit No. 20A/2012 by which the plaintiffs suit has been decreed. 2. Respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration, partition and separate possession on pleadings inter alia that the property as described in Schedule A of the plaint, was the ancestral property held by Hagru Ram, grand father of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 and father of defendant No.7. It was further pleaded that the defendants 1 to 7 had no other source of income except the agricultural income derived from the ancestral agricultural lands, as mentioned in schedule A of the plaint. Further pleading was that out of the earning from the ancestral agricultural lands of schedule 1, the defendants purchased various properties from time to time which included land purchased, various property plots and constructed house which is described in Schedule B of the plaint. According to the plaint, it was also pleaded that the mother, namely, Khorbahrain of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 and wife of Kumbhkaran defendant No.7, had purchased property from the earnings derived from the ancestral lands. Therefore, it was pleaded, that the entire property held by the defendants 1 to 7 though, purchased and recorded in their name, constituted ancestral property and as such, the plaintiff was entitled to 1/8th share of the disputed property shown in schedule A,B & C and accordingly prayed for a decree of partition and separate possession. 3. The defendants denied the plaintiffs claim by making specific averrment in the written statement that the defendants 1 to 7 acquired the property from their own earnings. The plaintiffs assertion that apart from the agricultural land shown and described in schedule A was ancestral agricultural land, was specifically denied. 4. 3. The defendants denied the plaintiffs claim by making specific averrment in the written statement that the defendants 1 to 7 acquired the property from their own earnings. The plaintiffs assertion that apart from the agricultural land shown and described in schedule A was ancestral agricultural land, was specifically denied. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed following issues: ØŒ oknÁ'u fu"d"kZ 1- D;k okn i= ds lkFk layXu vuqlwph *v^ esa nf'kZr Hkwfe oknh ,oa Áfroknhx.k dh iSr`d laifRr dh vk; ls cukbZ xbZ d`f"k Hkwfe gS\ Áekf.kr 2- D;k xzke ds'kMcjh ,oa nsojchtk esa fLFkr edku ,oa vkcknh IykWV dk fooj.k okn i= dh vuqlwph *v^ ,oa *c^ esa nf'kZr Hkwfe iSr`d laifRr ,oa iSr`d laifRr dh vk; ls Ø; dh xbZ Hkwfe gS\ Áekf.kr 3- D;k xzke fljlk dh [kŒ uaŒ 1@7 dk VqdMk jdck 0-20 gsDVs;j Hkwfe jkeukjk;.k us la;qDrkoLFkk esa ekudpan ls [kjhnk gS\ Áekf.kr 4- D;k xzke ds'kMcjh fLFkr oknh dh eka ckgfjuckbZ dh d`f"k Hkwfe ftls okn i= dh vuqlwph *l^ esa nf'kZr fd;k x;k gS] og mldh e`R;q i'pkr~ ckgjhuckbZ ds mRrjkf/kdkjh mlds ifr] iq= ,oa iqf=;ksa ds uke ls ntZ gqvk ftlesa lHkh dk leku LoRo fufgr gS\ Áekf.kr 5- D;k mDr okn xzLr Hkwfe] edku vkfn ftls vuqlwph *v^ ,oa *c^ ,oa *l^ esa n'kkZ;k x;k gS] mDr lHkh laifRr ÁfrŒ ØŒ 1] 2] 3 ,oa 7 dh LovftZr laifRr gS\ Áekf.kr ugha 6- D;k mDr vuqlwph *v^ ,oa *c^ ,oa *l^ esa nf'kZr edku Hkwfe vknh dk caVokjk mDr Áfroknh x.k us okfnuh dks nsus ls badkj dj fn;k gS ftlesa okfnuh dk 1@8 oka Hkkx gd o fgLlk gS\ Áekf.kr 7- D;k okn dk ewY;kadu mfpr <+ax ls fd;k x;k gS\ va'kr% Áekf.kr 8- D;k nkok le; ckf/kr gS\ Áekf.kr ugha 5. After affording opportunity to lead oral and documentary evidence learned trial court recorded a finding that the defendants failed to prove as to where from they had acquired the agricultural land described in schedule A appended to the plaint and they have also failed to establish that they had no other source of income except income derived from cultivation in agricultural lands of schedule A. It was held that the entire property in dispute, described in schedule A B & C was the ancestral property. According to the learned trial court, the agricultural land in schedule A was his ancestral property and the property shown in schedule B & C were acquired only from the income derived from the agricultural lands of schedule A. In this manner, the plaintiff was held entitled for 1/8th share in the entire property. 6. Counsel for the appellants, assailing the correctness and validity of the impugned judgment, argued that the learned trial court has fallen in grave error in recording the finding that the property was ancestral property. He would argue that the burden that the agricultural lands described in schedule A of the plaint constitute ancestral property was entirely on the plaintiffs and merely because the defendants did not prove as to how they had acquired that land, the plaintiff could not succeed as the burden was always on the plaintiff and weakness of the defendants could not be made basis to hold that the property described in schedule A was ancestral property. It is next contended that the learned trial court also committed illegality and perversity in recording that the other property which was shown to have been purchased in the name of defendants Parasnath, Kartikeshwar, Ram Narayan and Khorbahrin Bai were purchased from the income derived from agricultural lands of schedule A. It is argued that unless the plaintiffs succeed in discharging their burden of proving that the agricultural land described in schedule A was ancestral property other properties which were purchased by the defendants in their own name cannot be treated as having been thrown into common stock or the ancestral property. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submit that even though, the plaintiffs had not led any documentary evidence to show that prior to Kumbhkaran, the agricultural lands described in schedule A were recorded in the name of the ancestors of Kumbhkaran or his father Hagru Ram, nevertheless, the plaintiff led oral evidence in which, she has emphatically deposed before the court that the entire property was ancestral and it was received by her father from her grand father Hagru Ram. It is next contended that the defendants came out with the plea that the property was not ancestral but it was their self-acquired property therefore, the burden was on the defendant to establish that the property described in schedule A was self acquired property which they failed to prove, therefore, the learned trial court rightly drawn an inference that the property described in schedule A was ancestral property. It is next contended that as defendants have failed to prove that all other properties shown in schedule B & C were purchased from income derived from any other source except the agricultural activity carried out on agricultural land described in schedule A, it stands proved that the entire property was ancestral property because it was received from the ancestors or because it was purchased from the income derived from the ancestral property. It is also argued that from the evidence of DW-2 it is proved that it was prevalent practice, in the family, of purchasing property in the name of one member of the family though, funds used to be provided by other members of the family, as has been stated in respect of lands purchased in the name of Khorbahrin vide Ex.D-14 and Ex.P-15 and the defendant's witness DW-2 has admitted that for purchasing this land, funds were provided by Kartikeshwar, therefore merely because the purchases were made in the name of Parasnath, Kartikeshwar, Ram Narayan and Khorbahrin and merely because the properties were recorded in the Revenue records in the name of defendants, it cannot be conclusively presumed that they were purchased only from their own income derived from independent sources. 8. After hearing counsel for the parties, following points arise for determination: (a) whether the learned trial court erred in law and on facts in recording the finding that the agricultural lands described in schedule A were ancestral property? (b) whether the learned trial court was right in holding that the property shown in schedule B & C were purchased out of the income derived from agricultural activity on agricultural land shown in schedule A? 9. The entire case of the plaintiffs rests only on oral evidence and no documentary evidence has been led by the plaintiffs to prove that the agricultural lands described in schedule A of the plaint were ancestral property. 9. The entire case of the plaintiffs rests only on oral evidence and no documentary evidence has been led by the plaintiffs to prove that the agricultural lands described in schedule A of the plaint were ancestral property. Though in her plaint she has pleaded that the property in schedule A belong to her grand father Hagru Ram , in her testimony (as PW-1) she admits that she has not produced any document before the court to show that the land was recorded in the name of Hagru. Moreover in para 4 of her cross-examination, this witness of her own, states that her father was possessed of 50 acres of land and has denied that these 50 acres of land was in the name of her grand father but has asserted that it was in the name of her father. This witness further states in para 5 that the 50 acres of agricultural land which was recorded in the name of her father was purchased in his name by her grand father Hagru Ram, however, on what basis this statement is being made has not been stated. This witness, has further admitted that at that time her age was hardly 15 years. On what basis this witness stated that the property which was purchased in the name of her father was funded by her grand father is not known. The other witness DW-2 Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Patwari has been examined to prove various documents filed by the plaintiffs which mostly includes revenue entries. These documents of Revenue entries exhibits P-2 to P-36, only record the names of defendants but none of these documents record that it was earlier jointly held by plaintiff and defendants 1 to 7 along with Hagru Ram. These documents do not help the case of the plaintiff but only prove that the lands remain recorded in the name of defendants separately. 10. The entire case of the plaintiff rests on the pleading that the agricultural lands admeasuring 50 acres and described in schedule A of the plaintiff were ancestral property. Therefore the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that these lands of schedule 1A were ancestral properties. 10. The entire case of the plaintiff rests on the pleading that the agricultural lands admeasuring 50 acres and described in schedule A of the plaintiff were ancestral property. Therefore the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that these lands of schedule 1A were ancestral properties. What we find is that the learned trial court has shifted the burden of proving these properties as ancestral on the defendants by recording a finding that they failed to prove that these lands were self acquired by them. According to the learned trial court, as the defendants came out with the reply in their written statement that the land described in schedule A were not ancestral property but their own property, they were required to discharge its burden and on failure to prove, inference was drawn that the property was amcesstral in nature. 11. We find ourselves unable to agree with this finding. Initial burden of proving that the property described in schedule A was ancestral property was always on the plaintiff and could not be shifted on the defendants unless the plaintiffs succeeded in proving that the lands before Kumbhkatran were held by their ancestors or father of Kumbhkaran namely, Hagru Ram. This initial burden of proof was required to be discharged by the plaintiff. Even though, the defendants have stated that they have self acquired the property their failure to prove would not absolve the plaintiff of its initial burden to prove that the property described in schedule A of the plaintiff was ancestral property. The said finding recorded by the trial court, therefore, cannot be sustained and is reversed. We have to hold that the plaintiff, except shaky oral evidence, has failed to lead any clinching evidence much less any documentary proof of her assertion of fact that the agricultural lands admeasuring 50 acres described in schedule A of the plaint were ancestral property. 12. It was only when the plaintiff succeeded in proving that the agricultural lands described in schedule A were ancestral property that the onus would shift on the defendants to prove that all other properties acquired in the name of the defendants and is shown in the schedule B and C were purchased from the income derived from any source other than earnings from agricultural lands described in schedule A of the plaint. As the plaintiff has failed to prove its burden that land contained in schedule A of the plaint were ancestral property, it cannot be held that other properties purchased by the respective defendants in their individual name constituted part of the joint family property. 13. Defendants witness (DW-1) Kartikeshwar has stated that the property was their self acquired one and not inherited from their ancestor Hagru Ram. He has been subjected to detailed cross-examination and we do not find any admission on his part, elicited in his cross-examination, to say that the property comprised in schedule A was ancestral property. 14. Undisputedly, however, the land purchased vide Ex. D-13,24 & 15 has been purchased by defendant Khorbahrin. Even according to the defendants lands in Ex. D-13, 14 and 15 were purchased in the name of Khorbahrin therefore after the death of Khorbahrin, these property is liable to be partitioned amongst her heirs in accordance with the provisions relating to interstate successon of female Hindu as provided in Section 15 & 16 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956. According to Section 15, where a female Hindu dies intestate, her property shall devolve firstly upon the sons and daughters under Section 16, Order in which clauses will operate have been prescribed and the order of Succession. Upon conjoint reading of the said provision, upon death of Khorbahrin, her sons and daughters and husband will take the property in equal share. Therefore to the extent of plaintiffs claim of share in her mother's property, the plaintiffs suit has been rightly decreed by the learned trial court and to that extent, the decree of the learned trial court is upheld. It is held that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/8th share in the property held by Khorbahrin which was purchased vide sale deed Ex.D-13, D-14 and D-15, total admeasuring 1.23 acres. 15. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and decree, except in respect of land described in Ex. D-13,14 and 15 which have also been mentioned in schedule C is reversed and to that extent, plaintiffs suit is dismissed. In respect of the land described in schedule C, decree passed by the trial court is affirmed and it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/8th share in the property described in schedule C along with defendants 1 to 7. In respect of the land described in schedule C, decree passed by the trial court is affirmed and it is held that the plaintiff is entitled to 1/8th share in the property described in schedule C along with defendants 1 to 7. The appellate decree be accordingly drawn and be sent to the trial court for passing a final decree, upon partition by metes and bounds in accordance with the provisions contained in Order 20 Rue 18 CPC. 16. Appeal is partly allowed. Parties to bear their respective costs.