https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277906 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. en-us Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 28 Dec 2018 15:54:47 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277906 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 Mar 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277906