property item No.25, 26 in favour of the first defendant, insofar as item No.21 purchased by the second defendant, item No.6, 13 & 16 purchased by the third defendant. In order to prove the same, they had marked Ex.D1 to Ex.D8. Ex.D1 is the sale deed executed in favour of the first defendant dated 04.08.1977. Subsequently to the purchase, the entire records were mutated in his name and he was issued patta. Insofar as item No.21 of the suit property is concerned, it was purchased by the second defendant by the registered sale deed dated 27.01.1980. After the purchase, entire revenue records were mutated in his name. Insofar as the suit property item No.6, 13 & 16 are concerned, they were purchased by the third defendant by the registered sale deed dated 23.04.1987. In pursuant to the said sale deed, he was issued patta and other revenue records were mutated in his favour. Though the plaintiff had marked so many documents with regards to house tax receipts, there is no document to show that her father purchased every item of the suit property, while the defendants purchased their properties. That apart, the trial court held that the defendants failed to prove that they purchased the properties out of their own income. The trial court ought not to have decreed the suit on the defendants' plea when the defendants had taken specific stand that those properties were purchased by
