Headnote: Self-acquired property of father obtained through partition from grandfather remains separate property, not ancestral property.

The appellant (plaintiff), daughter of Respondent No. 1 (Defendant No. 1), filed a suit for partition and separate possession of Schedule ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’ properties

She claimed the properties were ancestral/joint family properties inherited by her father from her grandfather, Muniyappa, and that she became a coparcener by birth

The defendants contended the properties were the absolute/self-acquired properties of Respondent No. 1, having been acquired through a family settlement/partition of the grandfather's self-acquired assets

The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the properties were the absolute properties of the father and not available for partition

The appellant challenged this, arguing that once the court found the father "inherited" the property in Issue No. 1, it must be treated as ancestral

The Court applied Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (as amended in 2005), which grants daughters status as coparceners in joint family property

It relied on the principle from C.L. Arunachala Mudaliar v. C.A. Murugatha Mudaliar, establishing that property received by a son via gift or testament from a father for his exclusive benefit remains self-acquired, even if it came from a paternal ancestor

The Court further applied Section 8 regarding rules of succession and Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, affirming that the plaintiff must prove her case on her own merits and cannot rely on the defendant's lack of evidence

The Court determined that the suit properties were originally the self-acquired assets of the plaintiff’s grandfather, Muniyappa

Witness PW-2 (the father's brother) admitted that the properties were purchased by the grandfather and later divided among the children

The Court reasoned that under Mitakshara law, a father has absolute power over self-acquired property; when such property is divided among children, it becomes their separate/individual property, not ancestral property in which their own children (the plaintiff) acquire a right by birth

Regarding the procedural issues, the Court found that Issue No. 3 (entitlement as a member of a Hindu Undivided Family) sufficiently covered the character of the property

Finally, the Court rejected the "adverse inference" argument, noting that since the plaintiff failed to discharge the initial burden of proving the property was ancestral, the burden never shifted to the defendants to prove otherwise

Consequently, the plaintiff was not a coparcener in these specific assets and had no right to seek partition during her father's lifetime

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court’s judgment