defendant had purchased certain items in the plaint 1 and 2 schedule properties by virtue of the sale deed dated 06.11.1969 and thereby contended that the abovesaid properties are the separate properties of the second defendant. By virtue of Ex.B9, the second defendant's mother had claimed to have alienated the suit properties comprised therein to the second defendant. The second defendant's mother is stated to have claimed title to the said properties by virtue of the sale deed dated 15.04.1943, however the abovesaid parent title deed had not been projected by the defendants for the reasons best know to them. In addition to that, there is no proof placed on the part of the defendants that the abovesaid properties had been enjoyed by the second defendant as the separate properties by obtaining patta etc., and on the other hand, from the evidence adduced in the matter, it is found that the all the suit properties are found to be in the common enjoyment of the cosharers and therefore the claim of the defendants that the second defendant had acquired the abovesaid items independently out of his own income as such cannot be countenanced in any manner. Moreover, as rightly concluded by the first appellate court, when the defendants have failed to establish that the second defendant is having any independent income other than the agricultural income derived from the ancestral properties, in such view of the matter, and moreso, when the abovesaid properties are also found to be in the joint possession and enjoyment of the family members, all put together, the first appellate court is justified in holding that the abovesaid properties are also the joint family properties belonging to the parties concerned.
