1. The question is whether the property is the separate property of the 1st defendant : and the Exhibits A, B. and C contain admissions by first defendant that a part of his property was ancestral: if that is true, the burden of proof is put upon him to show that particular properties were acquired without the aid of the ancestral property. The Subordinate Judge, dealing with these admissions, holds, that they must have been false statements made by the 1st defendant and that the burden of proof is not put upon him, but we are unable to accept the explanations suggested by the Subordinate Judge. They are improbable and have nothing to support them. The explanation of the first defendant himself that he made the admissions under a misapprehension of the legal meaning of 'Self-acquired property' is different and the Subordinate Judge has not found whether it is true or false.
2. The admissions, contained in Exhibits A, B and C, are prima facie evidence of the existence of ancestral property and the Subordinate Judge was wrong in treating them as of no value; and we cannot accept his view that the burden of proof in spite of them remained upon the plaintiff. The suit was, therefore wrongly dismissed: and we reverse the decree and remand the suit for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the event.