JUDGMENT : K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J. 1. The present Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2016 in A.S. No.5 of 2016 on the file of Principal District Court, Darmapuri, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2015 passed in O.S. No.37 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Harur. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court. 3. The appellant as plaintiff filed the above suit for partition claiming 1/3 share in the suit properties. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the 2 nd defendant are daughter and son of the 1 st defendant. On 09.01.1986, the suit properties were purchased from one Muthusamy vagaiyara and the same was enjoyed by the plaintiff and defendants along with their father Sundaram @ Muthu Gounder. The suit properties were purchased by selling the ancestral property on 13.03.1985 and the same is mentioned in the sale deed. Since the 1 st defendant and her husband were elderly person of the family, the records stood in their name. While so, on 06.05.2012, the said Muthu Gounder, father of the plaintiff and the 2 nd defendant died and thereafter, the plaintiff and the defendants jointly cultivated the suit properties. Even after the marriage of the plaintiff in the year 1995, she jointly enjoyed the suit properties along with the defendants. No partition took place prior to filing of the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiff came to know that the father of the plaintiff and her mother namely the 1 st defendant have executed a settlement deed dated 23.09.2010 in favour of the 2 nd defendant with an intention to defraud the plaintiff. Since the defendants were attempting to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit properties, she was constrained to file the above suit for partition. 4. Per contra, the defendants would submit that, on 13.03.1985, the father of the plaintiff sold his self acquired property and purchased the suit properties on 09.01.1986. Further the 1 st defendant by utilizing the money given to her at the time of marriage, purchased a portion of the suit properties on 09.01.1986 and therefore, the above properties are the self acquired properties of the 1 st defendant. Further the 1 st defendant by utilizing the money given to her at the time of marriage, purchased a portion of the suit properties on 09.01.1986 and therefore, the above properties are the self acquired properties of the 1 st defendant. On 23.09.2010, the 1 st defendant along with her husband, executed a settlement deed in favour of their son namely the 2 nd defendant and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit properties and prayed for dismissal of the suit. 5. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the appeal preferred by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the first appellate court. 6. Aggrieved by this, the present Second Appeal is preferred by the Plaintiff. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that, the suit properties were purchased by her father Muthu Gounder and her mother namely the 1 st defendant by selling the ancestral property, which her father Muthu Gounder had got through a partition deed and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to get a share as per the amended Hindu Succession Act , 2005. While so, the courts below erred in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefit of the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act , 2005, since the properties sold for purchasing the suit properties are the self acquired properties of Muthu Gounder. The recitals found in Ex.A1 sale deed dated 13.03.1985, would clearly show that the properties are ancestral properties of Muthu Gounder. Therefore, the settlement deed executed by Muthu Gounder in favour of the 2 nd defendant under Ex.A6 is not binding on the plaintiff. Hence, prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the courts below. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants would submit that, the suit properties are the self acquired properties of the 1 st defendant and her husband and they executed a settlement deed on 23.09.2010 in favour of the 2 nd defendant, which is a valid document binding on the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit properties. Hence prayed for dismissal of the Second Appeal. 9. Heard on both sides. Records perused. 10. Hence prayed for dismissal of the Second Appeal. 9. Heard on both sides. Records perused. 10. First, let us consider the nature of the property sold under Ex.A1 sale deed dated 13.03.1985, whether it is self-acquired property of late Muthu Gounder, or his ancestral property. The specific contention of the plaintiff is that the property sold under Ex.A1 sale deed dated 13.03.1985 is the ancestral property of her father Muthu Gounder, who got the same under a partition. The said partition deed dated 09.07.1968 is marked as Ex.B.1. Nowhere in Ex.B.1 it is mentioned that the properties allotted to Muthu Gounder are ancestral in nature. 11.The burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property in the first instance upon the person who claims it as coparcenery property. It is also clear if the possession of the nucleus of the joint family property is either admitted or proved, any acquisition made by a member of the joint family is presumed to be joint family property. It is also clear that the said presumption is subject to the limitation that the joint family property must be such as with its aid the property in question could have been acquired. It is further clear that it is only after the possession of an adequate nucleus is shown, that the onus shifts on to the person who claims the property as self acquisition to affirmatively make out that the property was acquired without any aid from the family estate. In this case, as already pointed out that there is no evidence to show that the property sold under Ex.A1 is the ancestral property of late Muthu Gounder. The recitals in Ex.A1 do not reveal that the properties sold under Ex.A1 is the ancestral property of late Muthu Gounder. Though, the said late Muthu Gounder got the property under Ex.B1 sale deed, nowhere it is mentioned that it is his ancestral property. The plaintiff failed to discharge the initial burden that the properties in the hands of late Muthu Gounder was his ancestral property. Under the said circumstances, the onus do not shift on the defendant to prove that the suit properties are self-acquired properties of the 1 st defendant and her husband. The plaintiff failed to discharge the initial burden that the properties in the hands of late Muthu Gounder was his ancestral property. Under the said circumstances, the onus do not shift on the defendant to prove that the suit properties are self-acquired properties of the 1 st defendant and her husband. It is also to be noted that in Hindu Law, for a property to be considered as an ancestral property, it has to be inherited from any of the paternal ancestors up to three generations. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govindbhai Chhotabhai Patel & Ors. v. Patel Ramanbhai Mathurbhai wherein it has been held as under: "18. The learned counsel for the appellants has referred to Shyam Narayan Prasad [ Shyam Narayan Prasad v. Krishna Prasad , (2018) 7 SCC 646 : (2018) 3 SCC (Civ) 702]. That is a case in which the property in question was held to be ancestral property by the trial court. The plaintiffs therein being sons and grandson of one of the sons of Gopal Prasad, the last male holder was found to have equal share in the property. The question examined was whether the property allotted to one of the sons of Gopal Prasad in partition retains the character of coparcenary property. It was the said finding which was affirmed by this Court. This Court held as under: (SCC p. 651, para 12) "12. It is settled that the property inherited by a male Hindu from his father, father's father or father's father's father is an ancestral property. The essential feature of ancestral property, according to Mitakshara law, is that the sons, grandsons, and great grandsons of the person who inherits it, acquire an interest and the rights attached to such property at the moment of their birth. The share which a coparcener obtains on partition of ancestral property is ancestral property as regards his male issue. After partition, the property in the hands of the son will continue to be the ancestral property and the natural or adopted son of that son will take interest in it and is entitled to it by survivorship." 20. In view of the undisputed fact, that Ashabhai Patel purchased the property, therefore, he was competent to execute the will in favour of any person. In view of the undisputed fact, that Ashabhai Patel purchased the property, therefore, he was competent to execute the will in favour of any person. Since the beneficiary of the will was his son and in the absence of any intention in the will, beneficiary would acquire the property as self-acquired property in terms of C .N. Arunachala Mudaliar case [ .N. Arunachala Mudaliar v. .A. Muruganatha Mudaliar, (1953) 2 SCC 362: 1954 SCR 243 : AIR 1953 SC 495 ]. The burden of proof that the property was ancestral was on the plaintiffs alone. It was for them to prove that the will of Ashabhai intended to convey the property for the benefit of the family so as to be treated as ancestral property. In the absence of any such averment or proof, the property in the hands of donor has to be treated as self-acquired property. Once the property in the hands of donor is held to be self-acquired property, he was competent to deal with his property in such a manner he considers as proper including by executing a gift deed in favour of a stranger to the family." With regard to coparcenary property, the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohit Chauhan v. Surinder Singh & Ors. is as follows: 11. In our opinion coparcenary property means the property which consists of ancestral property and a coparcener would mean a person who shares equally with others in inheritance in the estate of common ancestor. Coparcenary is a narrower body than the joint Hindu family and before the commencement of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, only male members of the family used to acquire by birth an interest in the coparcenary property. A coparcener has no definite share in the coparcenary property but he has an undivided interest in it and one has to bear in mind that it enlarges by deaths and diminishes by births in the family. It is not static. We are further of the opinion that so long, on partition an ancestral property remains in the hand of a single person, it has to be treated as a separate property and such a person shall be entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property treating it to be his separate property but if a son is subsequently born, the alienation made before the birth cannot be questioned. But, the moment a son is born, the property becomes a coparcenary property and the son would acquire interest in that and become a coparcener. 12. The view which we have taken finds support from a judgment of this Court in M. Yogendra v. Leelamma N. ( (2009) 15 SCC 184 : (2009) 5 SCC (Civ) 602] in which it has been held as follows: (SCC p. 192, para 29) "29. It is now well settled in view of several decisions of this Court that the property in the hands of a sole coparcener allotted to him in partition shall be his separate property for the same shall revive only when a son is born to him. It is one thing to say that the property remains a coparcenary property but it is another thing to say that it revives. The distinction between the two is absolutely clear and unambiguous. In the case of former any sale or alienation which has been done by the sole survivor coparcener shall be valid whereas in the case of a coparcener any alienation made by the karta would be valid." 14.A person, who for the time being is the sole surviving coparcener as in the present case Gulab Singh was, before the birth of the plaintiff, was entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property as if it were his separate property. Gulab Singh, till the birth of plaintiff Rohit Chauhan, was competent to sell, mortgage and deal with the property as his property in the manner he liked. Had he done so before the birth of plaintiff, Rohit Chauhan, he was not competent to object to the alienation made by his father before he was born or begotten. But, in the present case, it is an admitted position that the property which Defendant 2 got on partition was an ancestral property and till the birth of the plaintiff he was the sole surviving coparcener but the moment plaintiff was born, he got a share in the father's property and became a coparcener. As observed earlier, in view of the settled legal position, the property in the hands of Defendant 2 allotted to him in partition was a separate property till the birth of the plaintiff and, therefore, after his birth Defendant 2 could have alienated the property only as karta for legal necessity. As observed earlier, in view of the settled legal position, the property in the hands of Defendant 2 allotted to him in partition was a separate property till the birth of the plaintiff and, therefore, after his birth Defendant 2 could have alienated the property only as karta for legal necessity. It is nobody's case that Defendant 2 executed the sale deeds and release deed as karta for any legal necessity. Hence, the sale deeds and the release deed executed by Gulab Singh to the extent of entire coparcenary property are illegal, null and void. However, in respect of the property which would have fallen in the share of Gulab Singh at the time of execution of sale deeds and release deed, the parties can work out their remedies in appropriate proceeding.’’ 12.In the instant case, the plaintiff has raised a specific plea throughout the proceedings that the suit properties were purchased by the 1 st defendant and her husband by selling the ancestral property, which according to the plaintiff was allotted to late Muthu Gounder in a partition dated 09.07.1968. As per Hindu Law, each party gets a separate and distinct share and this share becomes a self acquired property and they have absolute rights over it until a son or daughter are born. Apparently, the recitals in the partition deed does not reveal that the properties allotted to late Muthu Gounder are ancestral properties. Thus, the recitals in the partition deed establish that, the property allotted to late Muthu Gounder does not remain as joint family property. Hence, the presumption is that after partition, the property ceases to be joint family properties and the shares of late Muthu Gounder became his self-acquired properties. Hence, the suit properties acquired by 1 st defendant and her husband became their self acquired property vide sale deeds dated 09.01.1986. Even the sale deeds (Exs. A2 & A3) does not anywhere disclose that the suit properties were purchased by the defendant No.1 and her husband from the sale proceed received by selling the ancestral property. Hence, the suit properties acquired by 1 st defendant and her husband became their self acquired property vide sale deeds dated 09.01.1986. Even the sale deeds (Exs. A2 & A3) does not anywhere disclose that the suit properties were purchased by the defendant No.1 and her husband from the sale proceed received by selling the ancestral property. Except for a mere reference to the partition deed dated 09.07.1968 in Ex.A.1 sale deed, is not sufficient to come to a conclusion that the properties allotted to late Muthu Gounder under Ex.B1 partition deed should be treated as ancestral property, and no evidence was let in by the plaintiff to prove that the property allotted to late Muthu Gounder is a ancestral property and that it was only from selling the above property, the suit properties were purchased. No records have been produced in this regard. Except in the plaint and in the oral evidence of the plaintiff, the ancestral property was sold to purchase the suit properties, there is no evidence in this regard. Even in Ex.A1 sale deed, it is not mentioned that the properties sold are the ancestral properties of late Muthu Gounder. It is relevant to extract the recitals in the said document. 13.Moreover, the mere existence of sons and daughters in joint Hindu family does not make the father's separate or self-acquired property as joint family property. Even assuming that the property sold under Ex.A.1 is the ancestral property of late Muthu Gounder, the same was sold in the year 1985 and the suit properties were purchased only in the year 1986. While so, the plaintiff must establish that the sale proceeds received under Ex.A1 was utilized for purchasing the suit properties to assume the character of ancestral property. The plaintiff failed to establish the same. In fact, the sale deeds under Exs.A1 to A3 were not challenged by the plaintiff at any point of time prior to the suit. Thus, taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit properties. In fact, the sale deeds under Exs.A1 to A3 were not challenged by the plaintiff at any point of time prior to the suit. Thus, taking note of the facts and circumstances of the case, in my considered opinion, the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit properties. 14.No infirmity or perversity found in the findings of the Courts below that the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the suit properties and rightly upheld the settlement deed in favour of the 2 nd defendant in which the plaintiff cannot seek partition. In the said factual findings, this Court cannot interfere. 15.In the result, the second appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.