Burden of proof in joint family property claims: prior partition inferred from admissions, mortgage deed, and separate enjoyment.

The plaintiff failed to prove that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties or that no prior partition had occurred. The Court relied on the plaintiff's own admission of an earlier partition, the 1922 registered mortgage deed, and surrounding circumstances showing separate enjoyment by different branches to infer that the family had already divided. Revenue records and a marriage invitation were held insufficient to establish joint family status or coparcenary rights. Applying the burden of proof principle, the Court found that the plaintiff had not displaced the defendants' case of prior separation, and he was not entitled to partition and separate possession.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff proved that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties and that there had been no prior partition, so as to entitle him to a share in the properties.

Analysis: The evidence did not establish joint family possession or joint enjoyment by the plaintiff's branch. The plaintiff's own admission indicated an earlier partition about 80 years prior. The registered mortgage deed of 1922, read with the surrounding circumstances, showed separate enjoyment of portions of the property by different branches and supported the inference of a prior partition. The Court also held that the materials relied upon by the plaintiff, including revenue records and the marriage invitation, were insufficient to prove joint family status or coparcenary rights. Applying the burden of proof principle, the Court found that the plaintiff had failed to displace the defendants' case that the family had already separated.

Conclusion: The plaintiff failed to prove that the suit schedule properties were joint family properties or that no partition had taken place, and he was not entitled to partition and separate possession.

---