JUDGMENT H.T. Narendra Prasad, J. - This appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure is filed by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2004 in O.S. No. 214/2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Harihara, whereby Civil Court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs for partition. 2. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Sri Mallappa has three sons namely, Revanasiddappa, Parameshwarappa and Hanumanthappa. Plaintiff No. 1 is the brother of defendant No. 1; plaintiff No. 2 and defendant No. 2 are sons of one Sri Hanumanthappa. Hanumanthappa has died. Suit schedule properties are joint family property of Mallappa. After death of Mallappa, the plaintiffs and defendants were jointly cultivating the suit schedule property. Plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S. No. 214/2002 before the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Harihara, for partition and separate possession. After service of summons, defendants appeared through their counsel. They have filed written statement and contended that there was a partition among the plaintiffs and defendants in the year 1985 and further they have contended that another 5 acres of land which is purchased from the income of joint family property has not been included as suit schedule property. On appreciation of pleadings of the parties, Trial Court has framed following issues; '(1) Whether Plaintiff proves that the Suit Schedule Properties are Joint Family Properties? (2) Whether the Suit is bad for Non-joinder of Necessary Parties? (3) Whether Defendant No. 1 proves that the Suit Schedule Properties have been fallen to the share of Defendant No. 1 & 2? (4) Whether Defendant No. 1 proves that Plaintiff is having 5 acres of land at Ballur village in Davanager Tq. which is not put into hotch-pot for partition? (5) Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to get their share by metes and bounds in the Suit Schedule Property? (6) To what Decree or Order.' 3. In order to prove their case, plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 have been examined as PWs. 1 & 2 and they have marked Exhibits P1 to P10 documents and on the other hand, defendant No. 1 was examined as DW. 1 and examined another witness as DW. 2 and not marked any documents. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has given finding on issues and decreed the suit. 'ORDER The Suit of Plaintiffs is hereby decreed against Defendants with Costs. 1 and examined another witness as DW. 2 and not marked any documents. On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court has given finding on issues and decreed the suit. 'ORDER The Suit of Plaintiffs is hereby decreed against Defendants with Costs. The Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant No. 1 are entitle to get their 1/3rd share each and Plaintiff No. 2 & Defendant No. 2 are also entitle to get their 1/6th share in the Suit Schedule Properties by metes & bounds. The Defendants are hereby directed to hand-over the Shares of Plaintiffs within 3 months in favour of Plaintiffs from the date of this Order. In case the Defendants failed to do so, the Plaintiffs are entitle to get their shares in due process of law. There should be a separate enquiry in respect of the Mesne Profits. Draw Preliminary Decree accordingly.' 4. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 02.06.2004 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Harihara, the defendants therein have filed this appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that 5 Acres and 31 Guntas of land situated in Balluru Village was purchased jointly by the plaintiffs and defendants from the income of the joint family property. The same has not been included in the suit schedule property. In spite of specific contention taken by the appellants, Trial Court has negatived the issue No. 4. He further contended that there is already a partition among the family members in the year 1985. Hence, the suit filed for partition itself is not maintainable. In spite of the same having been proved by the defendants that Trial Court has negatived that issue. Hence, he sought for allowing this appeal. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has contended that these two specific contentions have been taken by the appellants in the Written Statement. On the basis of their pleadings, the Trial Court has framed issues No. 3 and 4. It is the burden on the defendants to prove the issues. Except their giving oral statement, no document has been produced to establish their claim. Trial Court has rightly negatived issues No. 3 and 4. Hence, he sought for dismissal of this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the original records. 8. It is the burden on the defendants to prove the issues. Except their giving oral statement, no document has been produced to establish their claim. Trial Court has rightly negatived issues No. 3 and 4. Hence, he sought for dismissal of this appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the original records. 8. Point for consideration in this appeal is 'whether the Court below is justified in holding the issue Nos. 3 and 4 as negative, in the facts and circumstances of the case?'. 9. It is not in dispute that Mallappa has three sons namely Revanasiddappa, Parameshwarappa & Hanumanthappa. Hanumanthappa is dead leaving behind Siddappa and Ramesha as his sons. It is also not in dispute that suit schedule property is a joint family property. Both plaintiffs and defendants are cultivating the same, after death of Mallappa. The Trial Court has framed issue No. 3 in respect of earlier partition. According to the pleadings of the parties, the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties of the plaintiffs and defendants. Defendants have taken contention that there was an earlier partition but they have not produced any documentary evidence to show that during the life time of father of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 there was a partition in the suit schedule property. As per the documents produced by the parties and oral evidence of both PW. 1 & DW. 1, it is clear that there was no partition among the family members in the year 1985. Even, the appellants, except giving an oral evidence have not produced any iota of evidence in respect of partition in the year 1985. From perusal of the Exs. P2 to P10, Records of Right clearly shows that properties were earlier stand in the name of father of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1 and also in the name of Hanumanthappa. If there is any partition in the year 1985, the parties should have acted on the partition and their names should have mutated in the revenue records. By perusing documents produced by the parties, it is very clear that no such entries have been made in the revenue records. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly held that defendants have failed to prove the oral partition which was held in the year 1985. 10. By perusing documents produced by the parties, it is very clear that no such entries have been made in the revenue records. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly held that defendants have failed to prove the oral partition which was held in the year 1985. 10. In respect of second contention is concerned regarding 5 acres of the land situated in Ballur village, Davanagere Taluk, the Trial Court has framed issue No. 4. '(4) Whether Defendant No. 1 proves that Plaintiff is having 5 acres of land at Ballur village in Davangere Tq. which is not put into hotch-pot for partition?' 11. It is very clear that the burden is on the defendants to prove that 5 acres of the said land have been purchased from the income of joint family property. Except making averments in the written statement as well as oral evidence by the defendants, no document has been produced to show that Smt. Ningamma sold that property in favour of plaintiff No. 1 and defendant No. 1. The defendants have failed to prove issue No. 4 by not producing necessary documents and they have not discharged their burden. Therefore, Trial Court has rightly negatived the issue No. 4. 12. In view of the above, the issue is answered accordingly and there is no error in the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.