JUDGMENT
P.K. Misra, J.
1. Plaintiff is the appellant against the decision of the trial Court in dismissing the suit for partition.
2. The genealogy relating to the parties is extracted below :
GENEALOGY
Lokanadham
_________________________|_______________________________
| | | | |
Sitaram Srirangam Narasimha Satyanarayan Lakshmipati
(Dead) Murth(D-1) (D-2) (Pltff.)
-Bangaramrna -Sridevi
(D-4) (D-6)
___________|_____________
| |
Kedarnath Kasturibai
(0-3) (D-5) (Foster daughter)
It is alleged that defendant No. 3 is the adopted son of Srirangam and defendant No. 7 is the daughter of defendant No. 1. Defendants 3 and 5 are the legatees under a will executed by Srirangam. As per the plaintiff’s case, the disputed properties were acquired out of the joint family properties but had been left out in the partition, which had taken place in 1971. The further case of the plaintiff is that earlier O. S. No. 89 of 1941 had been filed for partition of joint family properties and the same was compromised, but except Sitaram who separated others remained joint. The parents of the plaintiff expired in the year 1960 and 1961. Though in 1863 a document of partition was executed, the same was not acted upon and the plaintiff, defendants 1, 2 and Srirangam continued to remain joint. Ultimately in 1971 the properties of the Joint family were partitioned excepting the suit schedule properties. It is asserted that since the disputed properties had been acquired out of the joint family property and had not been partitioned in the year 1971, the same should be partitioned.
3. Defendants 2 and 5 remained ex parte. Though separate written statements were filed by defendants 7, 3, 4, 1, 6 and 8, the cases of the defendants were similar. It is claimed by the defendants that defendant No. 3 was the adopted son of Srirangam and defendant No. 5 was the foster daughter of Srirangam. The compromise decree in the earlier suit. O. S. No. 89 of 1941 was given effect to and the six shares as described in the schedule attached to the said final decree in the suit were separately possessed by the parties and after the final decree in the earlier suit, no joint family was in existence. The allegation that only Sitaram had separated, and others remained joint, was denied specifically. It is further claimed that plaintiff, defendants 1,2 and Srirangam carried on gold business jointly as partners along with one S. Raghunadham in the same and style of ‘Jamula Sreerangam Brothers and Limiti Raghunadham’ from 1943 to 1952, which was subsequently dissolved. Thereafter, plaintiff, defendants 1, 2 and their late brother Sriranga started business in the name and style of ‘Jammula Sreerangam Brothers’ as partners and not as members of joint family. It is further claimed that in the year 1963 an Arbitrator had been appointed, but he refused to arbitrate and subsequently on the intervention of one Sri Krishna Murty, there was division of properties amongst the four brothers by a registered partition deed dated 19-12-1963 and the four brothers took possession of their respective properties and continued to remain in exclusive possession. As such after 1963 there was neither any joint business nor any joint family property. The properties subsequently acquired are the own exclusive properties of the respective purchasers.
4. The trial Court framed several issues. It found that defendant No. 3 was the adopted son of Srirangam. It further found that since there was no joint family which was previously partitioned, the disputed properties had been acquired by various purchasers by their own account and cannot be treated as joint family property.
5. In this appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently challenged the correctness of the main finding of the trial Court specially relating to the issue of adoption and issue relating to the nature of the properties acquired by various parties. So far as the finding relating to the nature of properties is concerned, the trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the property had been purchased out of the joint family properties. In fact, after the disposal of the earlier suit on the basis of compromise there was no joint family in existence. The case of the defendants that thereafter some of the brothers had joint business as partners seems to be well-established in view of the subsequent documents in the year 19*3 and 1971. Once the joint family is dissolved, any acquisition of properties by the members of erstwhile joint family cannot be treated to be joint family property and the burden is heavy on the persons asserting that such acquisition is joint family property to prove such an assertion by adducing cogent evidence. In the absence of any reliable evidence, the trial Court held that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the joint family continued and the properties had been acquired out of the nucleus of joint family property. In such view of the matter, the plaintiff’s case for partition has been rightly dismissed.
6. So far as the question of adoption is concerned, the same is based on discussion of oral evidence as well as documentary evidence on record. Though Sri Pal has taken me through the entire documents on record and the oral evidence on record, I do not find any reason to differ from the finding of the trial Court on this score.
7. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed.
The parties are directed bear their own costs throughout.