Court rules on partition suit, grants shares in some properties. Plaintiff's appeal dismissed for lack of evidence.

The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of family properties, claiming a share. The trial court granted shares in some properties but excluded others. The plaintiff failed to prove certain properties were joint family assets. Evidence of family income and contributions to the family business was found lacking. The court upheld the trial court's decision, dismissing the appeal due to insufficient evidence. Each party was ordered to bear their costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement of the plaintiff to demand partition of properties.
2. Determination of whether certain properties are joint family properties or self-acquisitions.
3. Evaluation of the income and expenditure of the family to establish the existence of a sufficient nucleus.
4. Determination of the presumption of joint family property.
5. Assessment of the contribution of family members to the family business.
6. Determination of the share of the plaintiff in the suit properties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Entitlement of the plaintiff to demand partition of properties:
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition of the family properties, claiming a 5/16 share. The trial court passed a preliminary decree granting the plaintiff shares in some properties but excluded others, leading to this appeal.

2. Determination of whether certain properties are joint family properties or self-acquisitions:
The trial court found that Item No. 1 belonged to Janaki Ammal and was not a joint family property, thus entitling the plaintiff to a 1/5th share. Items 2, 7, and 8 were declared as joint family properties, granting the plaintiff a 5/16th share. The remaining items were declared self-acquisitions of Ramachandra Padayachi. The plaintiff failed to prove that the properties in the name of Ramachandra Padayachi or his wife were purchased with family funds.

3. Evaluation of the income and expenditure of the family to establish the existence of a sufficient nucleus:
The plaintiff did not provide evidence regarding the income derived from family properties or the expenditure of the family. The court emphasized that merely having a nucleus is insufficient; there must be proof of surplus income used for acquiring other properties. The plaintiff's evidence was inadequate in this regard.

4. Determination of the presumption of joint family property:
The court referred to several precedents establishing that there is no presumption that a joint family possesses joint property. The burden of proving that a property is joint family property lies on the party asserting it. The court observed that the plaintiff did not discharge this burden, as there was no evidence of sufficient surplus income from the family nucleus.

5. Assessment of the contribution of family members to the family business:
The plaintiff claimed that the family business, including paddy business, brick kiln business, and grocery shops, was managed by the three brothers. However, the court found inconsistencies in the plaintiff's statements and concluded that the businesses belonged solely to Ramachandra Padayachi. There was no evidence of financial or labor contributions from the plaintiff or Ganapathy Padayachi.

6. Determination of the share of the plaintiff in the suit properties:
The court confirmed the trial court's decision, granting the plaintiff a 5/16th share in Items 2, 7, and 8, and a 1/5th share in Item 1. The remaining properties were declared self-acquisitions of Ramachandra Padayachi. The court also addressed the issue of the 17th defendant's death, concluding that it did not affect the quantum of shares.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's judgment. The court emphasized the need for concrete evidence to prove the existence of a sufficient family nucleus and contributions to the family business. The plaintiff failed to establish his claims, leading to the dismissal of the suit. Each party was directed to bear their respective costs.

---