Merely proving a family had some ancestral land (like the 3.5 acres in the 1954 SLR) is insufficient. Courts require proof that this nucleus was yielding enough surplus income to fund new acquisitions. If the 15 acres were "rainfed" and generated no significant agricultural income, as you noted, the legal presumption of a joint family purchase is weakened. 

2)The burden of proof initially lies on the party asserting that a property is joint. If the petitioner has produced no evidence of agricultural income from the original 3.5 acres, they have likely failed to discharge this initial burden.

3)There is no automatic presumption that property standing in a female's name belongs to the joint family. If Palaniammal was listed as the "Heir" in the 1954 SLR, the property may be viewed as her absolute separate property rather than an "ancestral" holding for the benefit of male descendants. 

Appellate court will consider the said points: A self acquired property cannot be considered as ancestral property in any case

The judgment passed by the honorable ADJ appears to be erroneous without considering the legal facts. It was reported that the deceased Palaniammal purchased the properties by registered sale deed in the year 1948, therefore the revenue records showing that Palaniammal as heir(varisu) is irrelevant and legally invalid or error. Therefore the property cannot be brought into the joint family property or purchased out of joint family income especially when the children of Palaniammal were still minor during the year 1948 hence the ADJ has erred in its judgment stating that the property was inherited by Palaniammal from her late husband and purely imaginary or an inappropriate concept which is a legal error.  The heirs of late Balasubramanian cannot claim any rights or interest in the properties during the lifetime of Sengodan, besides Sengodan's deceased brother Nallagounder's case filed on the same grounds was dismissed by court which was not revived or appealed or a fresh suit was filed either by deceased Nallagounder or his heirs, therefore the present suit filed by the heirs of deceased Balasubramanian is not maintainable hence the judgment passed by ADJ, Namakkal is erroneous, without application of law or mind and a fit case for appeal provided you prepare strong ground for appeal with proper description of the background facts and legal issues involved in this. 

You have not mentioned your own advocate's opinion in this regard, hence reveret with his opinion too if you want more clarifications.

As an OCI cardholder, you can secure guardianship for your UK citizen mother (with advanced dementia) remotely via a Goa lawyer under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, in North Goa District Court—no personal presence needed, using your apostilled UK PoA.​

Document Authentication

FCDO apostille (3-8 days) on UK medical certificate (dementia diagnosis), LPA/PoA, court orders, and your birth certificate suffices for India (Hague compliant, no MEA required). Include OCI card, her UK passport, property list, affidavit. Some Goa courts may request Indian HC London verification—confirm with lawyer.​​

First, the core legal error in the judgment is the assumption that revenue records (SLR / A-Register) can, by themselves, convert a self-acquired property held under registered sale deeds into ancestral or joint family property.

Under settled law, registered sale deeds are the highest form of title evidence. Revenue records are maintained only for fiscal purposes and do not confer title. They can neither override nor dilute a registered conveyance. The ADJ has reversed this settled principle by treating the 1954 SLR entry as the foundational title document and then using it to infer ancestral character for all subsequent acquisitions, which is legally impermissible.

Second, the finding that Palaniammal’s properties were ancestral merely because her name was recorded as “Vaarisu (Heir)” in the 1954 SLR is fundamentally flawed.

The term “Vaarisu” in Tamil revenue parlance only indicates succession for revenue purposes. It does not establish:

• who the predecessor owner was,

• whether the predecessor owned the land as ancestral property, or

• whether any Hindu joint family existed.

There is no document on record showing:

• the husband’s ownership,

• the nature of his title,

• existence of any coparcenary,

• or inheritance under Mitakshara law.

Without proof of these foundational facts, the court could not legally presume ancestral property. Courts have consistently held that ancestral character must be strictly pleaded and proved, not inferred from revenue descriptions.

Third, the ADJ has committed a serious error in law regarding burden of proof.

In a suit seeking declaration that a property is joint family property:

• The entire burden lies on the plaintiff, not on the defendant.

• The plaintiff must prove:

– existence of a joint family nucleus,

– availability of surplus income,

– and nexus between such income and the acquisition.

Here, the judgment itself records that:

• no evidence of agricultural income was produced,

• no accounts, crop yields, or surplus were proved,

• land was rainfed,

• extent was limited,

• and no income figures were shown.

Despite this, the court shifted the burden onto Sengodan to disprove joint family income. This is directly contrary to Supreme Court precedent. Mere existence of some land does not raise a presumption of joint family property unless income and surplus are proved.

Fourth, the inference that Sengodan’s 1976 purchase was from “joint family income” is wholly speculative.

The 1976 property:

• was purchased under a registered sale deed in Sengodan’s name,

• decades after Palaniammal’s purchases,

• without any pleading or proof of pooling of income,

• and after a prior suit (1978) making the same allegation was dismissed.

A registered sale deed in an individual’s name carries a presumption of self-acquisition, which can be rebutted only by strong evidence. No such evidence exists here. The court has relied on assumptions, not proof, which is impermissible in a partition suit.

Fifth, the court has ignored binding effect of earlier litigation.

In 1978, Nallagounder filed a suit seeking:

• declaration that Sengodan’s 1976 purchase was joint family property, and

• declaration that Palaniammal’s properties were joint family properties.

That suit was dismissed for lack of evidence. Though liberty was granted to file a fresh suit with new evidence, no new foundational evidence has been produced in the 2018 suit. The 1954 SLR record was already in existence earlier and does not constitute “new evidence” capable of curing the defect. The court failed to examine this aspect, which attracts the doctrine of issue estoppel and abuse of process.

Sixth, the treatment of government acquisition compensation is also legally flawed.

Compensation follows title, not alleged character. Once compensation in 1999 was:

• awarded equally to Sengodan and Sukumar,

• accepted without protest,

• and later followed by a registered partition deed in 2011,

the plaintiffs in 2018 cannot reopen settled title decades later without proving fraud or suppression. No such plea or proof exists. The additional compensation in 2016 also flows from the same acquisition and cannot be treated independently.

Seventh, the 2011 registered partition deed has been wrongly invalidated.

A registered partition deed between co-owners is presumed valid. To invalidate it, the plaintiffs had to prove:

• lack of title in executants, or

• fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation.

Merely re-labelling the properties as “joint family” without proof does not nullify a partition. The court has effectively cancelled a registered document without satisfying the legal thresholds for doing so.

Eighth, the judgment suffers from perversity, which is a strong appellate ground.

Key findings are based on:

• conjecture instead of evidence,

• reversal of burden of proof,

• ignoring registered sale deeds,

• ignoring settled law on revenue records,

• and assuming income where none is proved.

Such findings qualify as perverse findings, warranting appellate interference.

At the appellate stage, your strategy should be to focus on questions of law, not factual re-appreciation alone. The appeal should specifically frame grounds such as:

• revenue records cannot override registered sale deeds,

• absence of proof of joint family nucleus,

• illegal shifting of burden of proof,

• misapplication of Hindu law on ancestral property,

• ignoring prior dismissal of identical claims,

• and invalid cancellation of registered instruments.

You should also seek stay of operation of the decree to protect gifted and partitioned properties pending appeal.

In summary, this is not a borderline case. The judgment suffers from fundamental legal infirmities, and appellate courts routinely set aside such decrees. Your case in appeal is strong, particularly on burden of proof, misuse of revenue records, and absence of any evidence of joint family income.

Based on the facts, the ADJ's judgment is legally vulnerable on appeal. The core finding—that the 1954 SLR record's "Heir" tag makes Palaniammal's property ancestral—is a critical and likely erroneous inference. A revenue entry describing a person as an "Heir" is prima facie evidence of how she acquired the property, but it does not, by itself, conclusively prove the property's character as "ancestral" or "joint family property" in the legal sense under Hindu law. The ADJ has presumed, without sufficient evidence, that this property was inherited from her husband and thus constituted joint family property. This presumption is weak, especially since Palaniammal was a 25-year-old widow in 1935, and the property was purchased via registered sale deeds much later (1948, 1972), indicating her independent acquisitions. The burden of proving that these purchases were made from joint family funds, not her own income or resources, was squarely on the plaintiffs. The ADJ's assumption that all her later purchases stemmed from the income of the 1954 property is speculative, absent any documentary proof of agricultural income or joint family nucleus.

Furthermore, the 2011 registered partition deed between Sukumar and Sengodan is a powerful document signifying a prior settlement, and its validity cannot be overturned merely by the plaintiffs' belated claim of it being "joint family property," especially after they accepted compensation in 1999. The gift by Sengodan in 2016 of his self-purchased (1976) property further underscores his treated ownership.

Strong Appeal Arguments:

1. Erroneous Presumption: Challenge the ADJ's conclusion that the "Heir" tag creates an ancestral property, emphasizing the lack of evidence of a joint Hindu family with a common nucleus of income.

2. Failure of Proof: Argue that the plaintiffs failed to discharge their burden of proving that (a) the 1954 property was ancestral, and (b) Palaniammal's subsequent purchases and Sengodan's 1976 purchase were made from joint family funds. Mere revenue entries are not proof of income.

3. Estoppel & Settlement: Highlight the 1999 compensation acceptance and the 2011 registered partition as binding conduct that acknowledges the properties as not being joint family property in the manner now claimed.

4. Limitation: Argue that the suit is barred by limitation, as the claim relates to a 1976 purchase and the nature of properties acquired decades ago.

The appeal should focus on these legal flaws to seek a reversal of the ADJ's declaratory findings.

Dear client,

The appeal should be filed under section 96 CPC, on the grounds that the judgment passed by the trial court was passed on perverse findings since their findings were not properly backed up with the accurate evidence. The reasoning was not backed up accurately and are merely assumptions. Further the appeal should be based on the substantial question of law including whether revenue records can override registered sale deeds and other aspects. Since the appeal involves substantial questions of law, the chances of the judgment of the lower court will be mostly reversed.           

I hope this answer helps. For any further queries, please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you.