Summary
The Court upheld concurrent dismissal of a family-property suit. The plaintiffs failed to prove that two schedules were self-acquired, while the defendants established that the ancestral properties had already been partitioned and the partition acted upon. Given the admitted joint-family nucleus and absence of acquisition evidence, the plaintiffs had not discharged their burden. No perversity or legal error justified reopening the factual findings.
Issues
- Whether the plaintiffs proved self-acquisition of the disputed properties and entitlement to fresh partition.
- Whether concurrent findings required interference.
Held
- Concurrent findings based on the evidence, consistent with pleadings and law and free from serious perversity, did not warrant reappreciation in this appeal. (¶¶ 17–18, 25–26)
- The initial burden lay on the plaintiffs to establish their pleaded case. They produced no sale deeds, proof of consideration, source of acquisition or other documentary evidence supporting self-acquisition; the defendants proved a prior partition that had been acted upon. (¶ 19–21)
- In the circumstances of admitted jointness and joint-family nucleus, a member asserting that specified properties were separately acquired had to prove that assertion. The plaintiffs’ failure supported treating those properties as part of the ancestral estate here. (¶ 22–24)
- Findings said to be adverse to the defendants did not cure the plaintiffs’ failure to establish their own principal case or support the alternative submission advanced. (¶ 27–28)
Result
Appeal dismissed; concurrent dismissal of the declaration and partition suit upheld.