from the joint family exertion, the burden lies on him to establish that the properties are of joint family in nature and that he is entitled to a share in the same. As the suits were tired in common, the appellant/plaintiff in O.S.No.183 of 1998 was examined as D.W.1 during the trial. The first defendant was examined as P.W.1. The appellant/D.W.1 had specifically deposed that till 1990, the family was doing business jointly. Their father was dealing in cotton and cotton seeds business and the income from the said business was sufficient only for the maintenance of the family. On the said date, there were no properties belonging to the family. Further, he has stated that after the death of the father in the year 1962, his elder brother attempted to continue the business till 1965. As the same was not profitable, he had given up the said business. Having deposed that there was no income from the joint family business or joint family earnings, the appellant/plaintiff is making an attempt to state that the suit properties were purchased out of the joint family income. To corroborate his evidence, P.W.1 had also stated that they had never done the business jointly, and only after the demise of the father, as the elder brother he had taken over the business and it is not established that there was joint family contribution in the same. P.W.1 has also stated that he used to lend money to the appellant and the same would be returned to him immediately. When P.W.1 has deposed, as above, the question of contribution by the plaintiff for the purchase of the property does not arise, as it is only borrowal and repayment.
