THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.2494 AND 2495 OF 1992 COMMON JUDGMENT:- Both appeals arose out of a common judgment in O.S.Nos.27 of 1981 and 229 of 1982. The suits were filed for partition of the suit schedule properties. The above suits were tried with another suit O.S.No.158 of 1989 by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.27 of 1981 filed a suit for partition of the suit schedule properties contending inter alia that they are the sons of the 1st defendant and the 3rd plaintiff is the wife of the 1st defendant and they are the members of Hindu joint family and all the schedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties. The 1st defendant abandoned the plaintiffs and was leading immoral life and there was no necessity to contract the debts. The 1st defendant was also carrying money lending business and he was also getting sufficient income from the agricultural properties. The defendant Nos.3 and 5 have brought into existence some collusive loan transactions and obtained decrees. The debts covered by those decrees are Avyavaharika and not binding the plaintiffs and therefore the suit was filed for partition of the suit schedule properties. The 3rd defendant filed a written statement denying that the suit schedule properties are the joint ancestral properties where the plaintiffs have got share. It was pleaded that there is no neglect by the 1st defendant. The defendants pleaded that 3rd defendant purchased Item No.1 and 4th defendant purchased Item No.2 and 5th defendant purchased Item No.3 in a court auction. They have taken possession of the property and they are the owners of the property. Delivery was also recorded in the proceedings. All the defendants have denied that the debts are Avyavaharika. The defendant Nos.3 to 5 claims to have lent money and filed the suits for enforcement of the debts and purchased the properties. The suit O.S.No.229 of 1982 was filed by the 4th defendant in O.S.No.27 of 1981 contending that he has purchased the property which is Item No.2 and 1st defendant has got the property by virtue of a settlement deed from Yenamala Subbamma during the year 1958. The 1st defendant mortgaged the property and for the enforcement of the mortgage debt, the suit was filed. Subsequently, the property was put to auction and delivery was also affected in 1977 and the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, the defendant Nos.1 to 4 illegally occupied the property in the year 1981 and therefore he is entitled for the possession and mesne profits. The defendant Nos.1 to 3 contended that the suit schedule properties are ancestral properties and the alleged settlement deed by Y.Subbamma is not true. The decree obtained by the plaintiff is collusive. The suit for partition O.S.No.27 of 1981 was filed and therefore the present suit is not maintainable. The other suit O.S.No.158 of 1989 was filed by the 3rd defendant which was decreed and against that there is no appeal as the matter was said to have been compromised. Both the suits were tried together after framing necessary issues and on behalf of the plaintiffs PWs.1 to 4 were examined and no document got marked. On behalf of the defendants DW.1 to 10 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-118 and Exs.X-1 and C-1 and C-2. After considering the evidence on record, the leaned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the suit O.S.No.27 of 1981 and decreed the suit O.S.No.229 of 1982. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeals are filed. Now the points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the suit schedule properties are the ancestral family properties of the plaintiffs and the first defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for partition of the properties as claimed in O.S.No.27 of 1981 and the decree in O.S.No.229 of 1989 is not valid? POINTS:- It is the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule properties are the ancestral properties and there was no need for the 1st defendant to alienate any of the properties and he has deserted them and all the decrees obtained are collusive. On the other hand, it is the contention of the defendant Nos.3 to 5 that the properties are not the joint family properties and according to them the 1st defendant has borrowed money for the family necessity and the 4th defendant also obtained a mortgage decree. The property was got by 1st defendant through Y.Subbamma and therefore the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, in order to substantiate the right of the plaintiffs, it is necessary for them to show that the properties are joint family properties or that they were acquired with any ancestral nucleolus. Evidently, when immovable property is said to be owned by a family for several years, the revenue records or municipal records will show the particulars of the persons who are owners of the property. But in this case, except the oral interested testimony on the side of the plaintiffs, no single document has been filed to show that the 1st defendant has succeeded to any of the ancestral properties wherein the plaintiffs have got a share. According to the evidence of PW.1, his grand-father Rami Reddy purchased the house and a shop and they were succeeded by 1st defendant. These facts are said to be known to the 3rd plaintiff who did not go into the box. There cannot be any dispute about the fact that source of some ancestral nucleolus is shown, a presumption can be drawn that so long as the family continued as joint, the properties are joint unless and otherwise the person claiming those properties could show that they are the self-acquired properties. There is also no proof to show that the 1st defendant has started finance business from out of any joint family nucleolus. Ex.B-2 sale deed shows that item No.1 was purchased by 1st defendant from one Seshamma who is wife of his junior paternal uncle. This, therefore, cannot be a case of joint family property. Ex.B-118 also shows that item No.3 was purchased by 1st defendant. Therefore, the evidence of PW.1 is not of any avail, even otherwise the evidence of PW.2 shows that the suit schedule properties are acquired by one Seshamma-wife of first defendant’s paternal junior uncle. This also cuts at the case of the plaintiffs. The learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly held that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the properties are joint ancestral properties liable for division. The lower court also considered the factum of validity of the sale in favour of 4th defendant and also entitlement to possession after delivery was affected and the appellants are admittedly in possession of the property and therefore they have to deliver the property to the 4th defendant. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Senior Civil Judge does not call for any interference and both appeals are liable to be dismissed. The points are therefore answered accordingly. Accordingly, both appeals are dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 27-08-2011 TSNR