JUDGMENT : CHATURVEDI, J. These two appeals Nos.130 and 131 are filed under S.23, Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act (Act No.8 of 1949) from a judgment and decree dated 22-12-1948 of a learned Single Judge (Mehta J.) passed in Civil First Appeals Nos.9 and 10 of 1948 affirming the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge, Caroth dated 12-8-1947 in Original Suit No.1 of 1945 by which he disallowed the claims of defendants 4 to 7 for partition of joint family property. 2. The suit for partition of joint family property was filed by Keshav Khande Rao Karnik plaintiff 1 and (his minor son) against his elder brother Sadashiv Khande Rao Karnik deft.1 (and his minor son) and against the mother of plaintiff 1 and defendant 1 Laxmibai (deft.3). The other collaterals were also impleaded as defendants 4 to 7 on their application. The plaintiff Dr. Keshav admitted that defendants 4 to 7 are members of the Joint family, but defendant 1 and his mother defendant 3 did not admit that they remained members of the joint Hindu family and had any right to the joint family property. The following pedigree will show the relationship of the family. 3. The claim of the plaintiffs for the partition was originally against defendants 1 to 3 on the ground that Khande Rao, the father of plaintiff 1 and defendant 1 and husband of defendant 3, died in the year 1916 at Mahidpur leaving the joint family property in dispute, which was managed for some time by defendant 3 and then by defendant 1.In May 1944 the dispute about family property was entrusted to 3 arbitrators Messrs Chitale, Samvatsar and Dighe but as the decision of the arbitrators could not be filed in time, the suit was instituted on 18-12-1944. Soon after, defendants 4 and 5 (who are the sons of Vishwanath) and defendants 6 and 7 (who are the sons of Ganesh or Ganpat Rao) applied to the Court claiming shares in the property in the suit on the ground that they were also members of the joint Hindu family. According to them the common ancestor of the family Madhav Rao had left a house and other moveable property worth about Rs.5000/- which passed to his three surviving sons Khande Rao, Vishwanath, and Ganpat Rao. According to them the common ancestor of the family Madhav Rao had left a house and other moveable property worth about Rs.5000/- which passed to his three surviving sons Khande Rao, Vishwanath, and Ganpat Rao. The family property in the suit had grown out of this ancestral nucleus and this property was liable for partition and defendants 4 to 7 were thus entitled to their shares in this property. 4. The learned District Judge at first framed 4 issues and the first issue was in the following words: "Whether the defendants 4, 5, 6 and 7 are the members of a joint Hindu family and whether they have a right to demand the partition of the suit property." 5. The learned District Judge then held that defendants 5 and 4 i.e. sons of Vishwanath remained members of the joint Hindu family and. were entitled to a share in the ancestral property but defendants 6 and 7 i.e. sons of Ganpat Rao have got no such right because their father (Ganpat Rao) had separated from Khande Rao long ago. The learned District Judge passed a preliminary decree in this suit to this effect. Defendants 6 and 7 then came to this Court in appeal and defendants 4 and 5 filed cross-objections and defendants 1 and 3 filed Cross-appeal. 6. This preliminary decree was set aside by Rege, J., who framed the following 5 issues for decision and remanded the case to the Court of the District Judge. "(1) Did Madhavrao at his death leave a house and Rs.5000/- worth of jewellery? (2) Whether this formed nucleus for the acquisition of the property in suit or any part of it. (3) Is the property in suit the self-acquisition of Khande Rao? (4) What is the extent of the property available for partition? (5) What are the respective shares of the contending branches of the family in the property " 7. (2) Whether this formed nucleus for the acquisition of the property in suit or any part of it. (3) Is the property in suit the self-acquisition of Khande Rao? (4) What is the extent of the property available for partition? (5) What are the respective shares of the contending branches of the family in the property " 7. After recording the evidence adduced by the parties on these issues and after carefully weighing it the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that Madhav Rao at his death in Samvat 1953 (1896 A.D.) had left a house and jewellery worth Rs.5000/- but that the jewellery or ornaments were given to the wives of three brothers Khande Rao, Ganpat Rao, and Vishwanath at the time of their marriages and remained with them and the house remained intact till Khande Rao's death in 1916, and thus nothing of the ancestral nucleus was utilised for the acquisition of property in suit which was the self-acquired property of Khande Rao who had established himself in Samvat 1953 as a pleader at Mahidpur with an income of Rs.150-200 per month and had himself purchased the property in suit. The learned Dist. Judge further held that Ganpat Rao had separated from Khande Rao seven or eight years before Khande Rao's death in 1916 and defendants 6 and 7 Mahadeo and Rangnath (who are appellants in C.S.A. No.131 of 1949 before us) cannot claim any partition. As regards defendants 4 and 5 Ramchandra and Anant (who are appellants in C.S.A. No.130 of 1949 before us.) it was held that that their father Vishwanath till his death in 1913 lived jointly with Khande Rao who had brought up both Ramchandra and Anant and afterwards they remained joint with defendant 1 till 1934 but as there was no ancestral property left they could claim no share in the self-acquired property of Khande Rao. 8. 8. In Civil First Appeals 9 and 10 of 1948 the learned Judge on the Single Bench (Mehta, J.) concurred in these findings holding that Khande Rao had acquired these properties at Mahidpur from 1907-1911, when Ganpat Rao and Vishwanath were dependent or protege of Khande Rao, that Ganpat Rao had separated and Vishwanath was a lad of 14-15 years and both of them were not in a position to contribute anything towards the acquisition and that there was no possibility of these properties having been acquired by joint labour or joint exertion. The learned Judge therefore came to the conclusion that the sons of Ganpat Rao and Vishwanath cannot claim a share in the separate and self-acquired property of Khande Rao. 9. From this judgment there are two appeals: - (1) C.S.A. No.130 of 1949 is preferred by the sons of Vishwanath (appellants Ramchandra and Anant) who are represented by Mr. Wagmare; (2) C.S.A. No.131 of 1949 is filed by the sons of Ganpat Rao (appellants Mahadeo and Rangnath) who are represented by Mr. Newaskar. 10. We first take C.S.A. No.131 of 1949 the appeal of sons of Ganpat Rao (appellants Mahadeo and Rangnath). Mr. Newaskar contends that though there are concurrent findings of facts against him still S.100, C.P.C., is not binding on us as it is an appeal under S.23, Madhya Bharat High Court of Judicature Act (Act No.8 of 1949). It is true that to these appeals S.100, C.P.C., will not apply as it is not an appeal from a decree passed in an appeal from any Court subordinate to this Court. This however does not warrant our departing from the general rule which forbids a review of the evidence for the third time where there are concurrent findings of two Courts on a pure question of fact. This general rule has been fully explained by their Lordships of the Privy Council in - 'Bibhabati Devi v. Ramendra Narayan' , AIR 1947 PC 19 (A) and it should not be taken to be confined to the Privy Council appeals only. Unless it is shown with absolute clearness that some blunder or error is apparent in the way in which the learned Judges have dealt with the fact a review of evidence third time will not be justified. Unless it is shown with absolute clearness that some blunder or error is apparent in the way in which the learned Judges have dealt with the fact a review of evidence third time will not be justified. It is only when there had been any principle of evidence not properly applied or if there had been written documents referred to on which the appellants could show that the Courts below had been led into error - 'Thakur Harihar Bakhsh v. Uman Pershad', 14 Ind App 7 (PC) (B), or, when the existence of a document does not appear from the judgment of the First Appellate Court to have been appreciated by it, and no effect whatever is given to the statutory presumption arising from the document - 'Shankar Rao v. Sambhu', AIR 1940 PC 192 (C) that the evidence can be re-examined. In fact, the question that has to be determined in such appeals is not what conclusion we would have arrived at if the matter had for the first time come before us, but whether it has been established that the judgments of the two Courts below are clearly wrong. In appeals from the decree of a Judge on the Single Bench the onus lies heavily on the appellants to show that the conclusion arrived at by the Learned Judge is legally erroneous - 'Diwan Chand v. Gujranwala Sugar Mills Co. Ltd.' AIR 1937 Lah 644 (D). Then we have, also to pay respect to the opinion which a Judge who has watched and listened to the witnesses has formed as to their credibility. In -'Prem Singh v. Deb Singh', AIR 1948 PC 20 (E) their Lordships of the Judicial Committee laid down that where a question of fact has been tried by a Judge, an appellate Court should not come to a different conclusion on the printed evidence unless it is satisfied that any advantage enjoyed by the trial Judge by reasons of having seen and heard the witnesses could not be sufficient to explain or justify the trial Judge's conclusion. In deciding these two appeals in my opinion we should follow the principles enunciated above. 11. Now it is well established in this case that Madho Rao the common ancestor, was in the service of the Holkar State and was during, his lifetime regarded as a man of some substance. In deciding these two appeals in my opinion we should follow the principles enunciated above. 11. Now it is well established in this case that Madho Rao the common ancestor, was in the service of the Holkar State and was during, his lifetime regarded as a man of some substance. He died on Posh Sudi 4 Samvat 1953 (i.e. on 7-1-1897). Before his death Madho Rao had suffered from a stroke of paralysis for about four or five years (Vide statement of witness Khande Rao D.W.1). A year before Madho Rao's death i.e. on 23-1-1896 his eldest son Khande Rao had shifted to Mehidpur for his practice. Khande Rao was not legally trained and during those times no training was needed for a pleader or a Public Prosecutor in Holkar State. It is admitted before us that he had ordinary education upto 5th standard. But within few years he established a good practice. The Hindu Gains of Learning Act was not enacted in Indore till 1936 and the principles were in applicable as Khande Rao had received no more than an ordinary education. His brother Ganpat Rao, soon after Madho Rao's death i.e. about 1899, was appointed a Thanedar in Mahidpur on a salary of Rs.12 per month and another brother Vishwanath, a minor, aged 12 years, came to Mahidpur within two years of his father's death and was brought up by Khande Rao. 12 It is not disputed that Madhav Rao left one house, ornaments and some moveable property. What it exactly was it is difficult to say. The learned District Judge has drawn certain inference from a letter (Ex.D-1.) written by Khande Rao to his brother Ganpat Rao in the year 1915 in which he mentions that the ancestral property is worth about Rs.5000/- and that Ganpat Rao is entitled to Rs.1666/-. 13. One thing that strikes me after a perusal of this letter is that Khande Rao, who tries in this letter to work out precise mathematical calculations for the expenditure incurred for the maintenance of the families of Ganpat Rao and Vishwanath, does not mention in this letter what the ancestral property exactly consisted of. A perusal of this letter however leads me to con-clude that whatever it was the ancestral property remained with Khande Rao and he was managing the joint family funds as Karta of the family. At one place he writes. 14. A perusal of this letter however leads me to con-clude that whatever it was the ancestral property remained with Khande Rao and he was managing the joint family funds as Karta of the family. At one place he writes. 14. In this letter he clearly mentioned that Khande Rao was maintaining the family of Ganpat Rao. He does not mention anything about house. But he mentions that as regards ornaments the prices will be determined later on: 15. He also states that some ornaments during his father's time were pledged and that he paid the pledge-money. It is clear that he paid the money from the ancestral nucleus and not from his own pocket. He writes: 16.At one place he also mentions in this letter that he is not indebted to anybody and that he has not derived any benefit from the ancestral nucleus. 17. This letter is also important to show that there was ancestral nucleus available to Khande Rao and that it was with him till 1915. Whether it was in cash or in securities in 1915 we do not know but it is certain that the ancestral nucleus was worth Rs.5000/- and it did not include either the ornaments or the Indore house. The learned trial Judge has neither analysed the contents of the letter Ex.D-1 nor discussed them in the judgment. He has however taken it for granted that Ex.D-1 mentioned that the ancestral nucleus was worth Rs.5000/- and consisted only of ornaments and. a house in Indore. It is true and the fact is supported by the evidence of Laxmibai, respondent 3, Bhagirath Bai, and Gajanan that the ornaments were given away to the wives of the three brothers at the time of their marriages and remained with them. The house in Indore was sold after the death of Khande Rao. It appears that Khande Rao had been supporting the two brothers from the ancestral nucleus and that the portion of Ganpat Rao in it had been exhausted and by 1915 Khande Rao had given Rs.1734 more from his own pocket and had informed him of this fact. 18. Then it is not contested that the property in dispute was purchased by Khande Rao during 1907-1911. At that time Vishwanath was a minor and Ganpat Rao was out of service. The only earning member was Khande Rao. 18. Then it is not contested that the property in dispute was purchased by Khande Rao during 1907-1911. At that time Vishwanath was a minor and Ganpat Rao was out of service. The only earning member was Khande Rao. There is no evidence that the later acquisitions of property by Khande Rao were in any way connected with the ancestral nucleus. It is natural for a member of a joint Hindu family to keep his self-acquired property separate from the joint family property meeting the expenses of the joint family from the joint family property. Therefore it cannot be presumed that the separate earnings of the member were spent on the maintenance of the joint family and that the income from the joint family property was utilised in whole or part towards acquisitions made by him - 'Vythinatha Iyer v. Varadaraja Iyer', AIR 1938 Mad 841 (F). In such case the acquisition of Khande Rao cannot be deemed in law to be joint family property unless he had desired them to be so treated. The mere existence of a nucleus of ancestral property will not by itself raise a presumption that the subsequently acquired properties of a member are joint family properties. The law is that where a nucleus of joint family property is proved or admitted, a presumption arises that the whole of the property of the joint family is joint including all acquisitions by a member of the joint family - 'Babu Bhai Girdharlal v. Ujamlal Hargovind Das', AIR 1937 Bom 446 (G). The presumption however can be rebutted. 19. Except for the agricultural holdings in Baraphater and Dhulet which I shall deal later on, other property was purchased in the name of Khande Rao alone (Vide D.1/9 and 1/10). Even the house occupied by Ganpat Rao from 1910 to 1930 was purchased by Khande Rao (Ex.D.1/5). (After discussion of evidence the judgment proceeds: -) From all the surrounding circumstances and especially from Khande Rao's letter to his brother EX.D-1 it is clear that Khande Rao wanted to keep his self-acquired property separated from Ganpat Rao. In such a case the mere failure of Khande Rao's keeping separate accounts of earning will not raise a presumption of blending, so far as the family of Ganpat Rao is concerned. 20. Then there is ample evidence that Ganpat Rao had separated from his brother Khande Rao. The date is uncertain. In such a case the mere failure of Khande Rao's keeping separate accounts of earning will not raise a presumption of blending, so far as the family of Ganpat Rao is concerned. 20. Then there is ample evidence that Ganpat Rao had separated from his brother Khande Rao. The date is uncertain. (After discussion of the evidence the judgment proceeds:-) In the presence of this overwhelming evidence the learned Judge of first instance has disbelieved the evidence of Hameed Khan D.W.1 on which Mr. Newaskar has very much relied before us. As the objection is to the weight of evidence and not to its admissibility we decline to interfere. Once separation is proved, we cannot go into the question whether the partition effected was on an equitable or unequitable basis. We cannot now re-open a family arrangement arrived at in 1908-1909, whatever its basis might have been. 21. Mr. Newaskar has drawn our attention to a sentence in Laxmibai's testimony which may mean that there was no division. But taking into consideration the whole tenor of that deposition it can only mean that there was partition without drawing up any formal deed. 22. Ganpat Rao then had separate agricultural holdings in Parabatheda in his own name (Ex.D-1/18). Whether they were purchased by Ganpat Rao, or, by Khande Rao for Ganpat Rao is immaterial after so many years. The fact however remains that this property was regarded as separate and after Ganpat Rao's death in 1929 the land was mutated in favour of the sons of Ganpat Rao and in January 1935 was sold to somebody as the appellants did not pay arrears of rent (Exs.D.1/16 and D1/17). If it had been a joint family Khata, Sadashiv might have tried to pay the rent and save the family property. 23. The third circumstance to be borne in mind is that just after Khande Rao's death, Ganpat Rao's wife with her two sons and two daughters went away to her brother's place at Depalpur and never returned. After her death there, all the four children of Ganpat Rao were brought up at Depalpur. Ganpatrao remained alive for a period of twelve years thereafter but the children never came to Mehidpur. Appellant Mahadeo came to Mahidpur only during his Janeoo and marriage. The ancestral house in Indore appears to have been sold at the time of Janeoo of the appellants Mahadeo and Rangnath. Ganpatrao remained alive for a period of twelve years thereafter but the children never came to Mehidpur. Appellant Mahadeo came to Mahidpur only during his Janeoo and marriage. The ancestral house in Indore appears to have been sold at the time of Janeoo of the appellants Mahadeo and Rangnath. Mahadeo admitted that he had filed a suit against defendant 1 Sadashiv for the sale of the house but abandoned it. According to Laxmi Bai the house was sold by herself and Ganpat Rao for the Janeoo of Mahadeo and Rangnath. In a Hindu family that importance is not attached to a son's marriage as to that of a daughter's marriage and the fact remains that the marriage expenses of the two daughters of Ganpat Rao had to be borne by their maternal uncle. That clearly shows that Ganpat Rao had long severed his connection with the family of Khande Rao and Ganpat Rao's sons cannot now claim to be coparceners in the family. 24. The only point for consideration then remains is about the agricultural holdings at Dhulet and Baraphatter. We have already seen that the Parabatkheda land was in the sole name of Ganpat Rao. Lands in Chitawad (Ex.D.1/12) and Lakhakhedi (Ex.D.1/11) were in the sole name of Khande Rao. But in the Khatowni of Baraphatter of Fasli year 1317 (1906-1908) the names of three brothers Khande Rao, Ganpat Rao and Vishwanath were entered as holders of the property (Ex.D.4/2). Then after the death of Vishwanath in 1913 and Khande Rao in 1917, the mutation order dated 11-7-1917 (Ex.D.4/3) showed that till that time the agricultural holdings in Baraphatter and Dhulet remained in the joint names of the three brothers. Except a general statement of the witnesses that all the property was purchased by Khande Rao from the earnings he had from his legal practice, there is no definite evidence that Baraphatter and Daulet lands were purchased by Khande Rao from his self-acquired property. The Pawti Book D-1/14 produced by defendant 1 is not Government record of rights and as it is not kept in a Government Office but remains with the holder or the Zamindar its evidentiary value is very little as compared to a Khatoni or Khasra record or a mutation order. A Pawti Book must necessarily be in the name either of the Lambardar or of the seniormost of the joint-holder who pays the revenue. 25. A Pawti Book must necessarily be in the name either of the Lambardar or of the seniormost of the joint-holder who pays the revenue. 25. The presumption is that from 1906 to 1917 the Baraphatter and Dhulet lands remained in the joint names of the three brothers. No evidence from Revenue Records of a period previous to 1917 has been adduced to rebut this presumption. 26. The entries in the Khasra of Baraphatter for the Fasli year 1935 (1925-1926) Ex.D.4/6 are not free from suspicion and according to the Ameen, Mr. Gangadhar Gokhale, the interpolations are in different ink and seem to be unauthorised. We therefore cannot rely upon them. But from clear entries in Khatoni of Baraphatter for the Fasli year 1335 (1926) Ex-D.4/7 and in the Patta Bandobast of village Baraphatter (Ex.D.1/13) it transpires that in 1335 Fasli year i.e., 1926 A.D. the names of Sadashiv and Keshav had been mutated and they alone were shown as holders of these lands. Ganpat Rao was at that time alive and did not object to it. There is no evidence that he had been, after his separation, in the participation of rents and profits from these lands. He seems to have abandoned his share in favour of other co-owners. from 1926 to 1944 (when the suit was filed), during the period of 18 years, the appellants did not even once try to exercise their possessory or proprietary rights in these lands. Prom the circumstances, it is easy to infer an ouster, if anybody sleeps over his rights or suffers his rights to be barred by limitation, the practical effect is the extinction of his title in favour of the party in possession, and there cannot be a revival of the title of which there has been a statutory extinguishment. It follows therefore that the appeal of the sons of Ganpat Rao must fail. I now proceed to consider C.S.A. No.130, the appeal by Ramchandra and Anant, sons of Vishwanath. 27. The appeal of the sons of Vishwanath must receive considerations entirely different from that of the sons of Ganpat Rao; for, Vishwanath till his early death in 1913 remained joint, in the same house with Khande Rao, and helped him in agricultural operations. He remained joint in food, estate and worship. 27. The appeal of the sons of Vishwanath must receive considerations entirely different from that of the sons of Ganpat Rao; for, Vishwanath till his early death in 1913 remained joint, in the same house with Khande Rao, and helped him in agricultural operations. He remained joint in food, estate and worship. At one place it is stated by Laxmibai respondent 3 in her deposition that Vishwanath remained separate for one year before his death. But she explained that Vishwanath was in the same house but would cook his food separately. All the material for cooking food as well as the cereals etc. were provided by her. Vishwanath's wife and children even then continued taking their meals jointly with Khande Rao's family. It appears therefore that till his death he remained joint in mess and estate. He was living exactly as a junior member of the Hindu joint family, had food and lodging and when the time came for him to be married a bride was found for him and his necessary expenditure incurred out of the common purse. He was looking after the agricultural operations and was also helping the family in day to day living. Several witnesses however have stated that he was lazy and was addicted to intoxicating drugs like Bhang and Ganja and that his exertions were of very little account lmplying that they would not entitle him to any share in the property. It is well settled law however that the quantum of labour cannot be the decisive factor in such cases. If there is a joint family and a joint estate, the youngest child would acquire an interest by birth without contributing any labour. As regards lands in Barapatter and Dhulet I have already stated above that from 1906 to 1917 these lands remained in the joint name of three brothers. And it was not before 1926 that the names of Sadashiv and Keshav were mutated and they alone were shown as holders of the lands. Dhulet land had subsequently gone out of the family but Barapatter land is still in the possession of the family. And it was not before 1926 that the names of Sadashiv and Keshav were mutated and they alone were shown as holders of the lands. Dhulet land had subsequently gone out of the family but Barapatter land is still in the possession of the family. The mutation effected in favour of Sadashiv and Keshav in the year 1926 cannot in any way affect the interests of the appellant Ram Chandra and Anant, for, the entry of the names of particular members of a joint family in Revenue records as being proprietor of the property, does not lead, by any means, to the inevitable conclusion that the property is not the property of the joint family to which they belong. This is very often a mere mattter of form: - 'Jot Singh v. Jangu Singh', AIR 1933 Oudh 482 (H). It has been held by their Lordships of the Privy Council in - 'Kamakhaya v. Abhiman', AIR 1934 PC 182 (I), that entries in a survey record or Khewat raise a presumption of correctness but it may be rebutted. Then in - 'Nirman Singh v. Lal Rudra Pratap Singh', AIR 1926 PC 100 (J), it has been held that mutation proceedings are in the nature of fiscal enquiries for the purposes of ascertaining which of the several claimants for the occupation of certain denominations of immovable property may be put into occupation of it with greater confidence that the revenue for it will be paid. Their Lordships further held in this case that orders in mutation proceedings are not evidence that the successful appellant was in possession as sole legal owner in a proprietary sense to the exclusion for example, of all claims of the other members of the family as co-owners The Revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to pronounce upon the validity of such a claim and these proceedings could not be the foundation of any proprietary right or interest. This ruling has been followed by us in a Gwalior case - 'Mst. Droupad Kuwar v. Mullco' , C.S.A. No.6 of 2005 (K). 28. Thus Ramchandra and Anant remained proprietors in Baraphatter and Dhulet lands even after mutation had been effected in favour of Sadashiv and Keshav. 29. The separation of Ganpat Rao in 1908-1909 does not raise any presumption that Vishwanath had also separated: - 'Hari Baksh v. Babulal', AIR 1924 PC 126 at p.133 (L), and - 'Dy. 28. Thus Ramchandra and Anant remained proprietors in Baraphatter and Dhulet lands even after mutation had been effected in favour of Sadashiv and Keshav. 29. The separation of Ganpat Rao in 1908-1909 does not raise any presumption that Vishwanath had also separated: - 'Hari Baksh v. Babulal', AIR 1924 PC 126 at p.133 (L), and - 'Dy. Commr. v. Sheonath', AIR 1927 Oudh 149 (M). The view formerly taken in some cases that where one brother separates from the other, and the rest continue to live as joint family, it must be presumed that there has been a complete separation of all the brothers, but that those who continue joint have re-united cannot now be regarded as good law (vide para 458 pp.559-560 Mayne on Hindu Law and Usages 1950 Edn.) The family of the two brothers Khande Rao and Vishwanath will be held to have remained joint, legally as well as actually, after 1908-1909. After Vishwanath's death in 1913 his family remained in the same house jointly with Khande Rao. The ancestral nucleus was with Khande Rao and the portion of Vishwanath in it in 1915 according to Ex.D.1 amounted to Rs.585 (1665-1080-586). Then there was the ancestral house in Indore. Thus it is clear that in 1915 at least (1) the ancestral nucleus, (2) the house in Indore, and, (3) the lands in Baraphatter and Dhulet were in joint possession of the family. The appellants Ramchandra and Anant, sons of Vishwanath remained in the same house jointly with Khande Rao's family till 1934. According to Laxmi Bai (respondent 3) Ramchandra used to help her in agricultural operations and in day to day family work. When Ramchandra appellant became an earning member it was settled that he along with his mother and brother would separate in mess but would remain in one of the houses of the family. There is a letter dated 4-4-1934 from appellant Ramchandra to Sadashiv (Ex.D.1/7) which states: "Yesterday you put before me two measures to secure our love as it is, in future, (1) to pay Rs.15/- to you as lodging expenses and live in joint and suffer other expenses myself, or, (2) to lodge independently .............. Will it be cause of interruption to our love if I accept, second measure? The first measure will be very inconvenient to me ........ Will it be cause of interruption to our love if I accept, second measure? The first measure will be very inconvenient to me ........ you read over to me the old accounts which I never wished to learn. I have nothing to say against this. I never dreamt to cross swords for the property and would never dream. If at all I have claim on my forefather's property I gladly forfeit.... Lastly I request you to be good enough to give me the building in front not as a claim but as a donation in token of pure love. I ask for it because I am serving in this State and I must have some immovable property in the State for being local subject." 30. It is contended that after this letter Ramchandra appellant cannot ask for partition as he had forfeited all his rights. This contention does, not seem to be well founded. It was a gratuitous admission that his rights had been extinguished. There is nothing in this letter to prevent him from withdrawing the said admission and the law is well-settled that when a person makes a gratuitous admission that the maker has no right in the property in certain estate there is nothing to prevent him from withdrawing the said admission unless there ls some obligation not to withdraw the gratuitous admission made by him: - 'Izhar Fathma Bibi v. Mt. Ansar Fatma Bibi', AIR 1939 All 348 (N). It is also to be noted that Ramchandra had no authority on behalf of his younger brother to forfeit his rights. There is evidence on the record that after shifting to the new house Ramchandra appellant and Sadashiv respondent had strained relations. Ramchandra appellant in 1941-1943, according to his version, occupied some lands in Barapatter and was after some time dispossessed by Sadashiv respondent. 31. That shows that he continued to exercise his rights in joint family property and I am clear in my mind that he was entitled to demand partition at least in lands in Baraphatter. The learned trial Judge has arrived at a right conclusion that Ramchandra and Anant appellants remained members of the joint family but his conclusion that there was no joint family property appears to be erroneous. The conclusion of the Learned Judge about ornaments is also sound. The learned trial Judge has arrived at a right conclusion that Ramchandra and Anant appellants remained members of the joint family but his conclusion that there was no joint family property appears to be erroneous. The conclusion of the Learned Judge about ornaments is also sound. Bhagirath Bai, mother of the appellants Ramchandra and Anant, admits in her deposition that she had ornaments given to her at the time of her marriage and that she had taken them to her father's house but they were taken away by her father who squandered them. The appellants cannot therefore lay any claim to other ornaments. It is then reasonable to infer that the portion of the appellants in the ancestral nucleus (Rs.586/-) must have been spent on their upbringing and education. 32. Lands in Dhulet have gone out of the family and the ancestral house in Indore was sold either by Sadashiv or by Ganpat Rao and Laxmi Bai. The evidence about this transaction is not very clear but the selling away of the ancestral House definitely deprived the appellants of any residential accommodation after their leaving the house in which they had been living ever since Vishwanath came to Mahidpur. That it was not the intention of Khande Rao who brought up Vishwanath and his sons is clear from the evidence and the way in which Vishwanath's family received treatment at his hands. It appears to me that on behalf of the Karta of the family, after Khande Rao's death, there was reckless disregard of the appellant's interests in parting with the agricultural holdings in Dhulet and the ancestral house in Indore. But the appellants are not now entitled to open up past accounts or to claim relief against past inequality of enjoyment of the family property. From the beginning the parties had remained under the impression that the whole property including the self-acquired property of Khande Rao was joint family property, and, from Khande Rao's time till 1934, the fruits of this property were enjoyed by the appellants as members of a joint family. In fact, from the way and the manner in which the profits of the self-acquired property were dealt with, it is not difficult to infer that Khande Rao had clothed it with some of the legal qualities and incidents of joint family property. In fact, from the way and the manner in which the profits of the self-acquired property were dealt with, it is not difficult to infer that Khande Rao had clothed it with some of the legal qualities and incidents of joint family property. This claim was however never made in the defence presented, nor before us in arguments, and so it is no use discussing the evidence about a plea which was never put forward. But I hope that Sadashiv, Keshav and Laxmi Bai will feel their moral responsibility in providing suitable residential accommodation to the appellants in one of the family houses left by Khande Rao. Legally, the appellants can claim only one half of the share in lands in Baraphatter. 33. The result is that we allow the Civil Second Appeal No.130 to this extent that the appellants will be entitled only to one half share in the family lands in Baraphatter. Their appeal about other properties is dismissed. Considering the near rela tions of the parties the parties will bear their own costs throughout. The decree of the learned trial Court will be amended accordingly. 34. We dismiss Civil Second Appeal No.131 with Costs. 35. KAUL, C.J,.:- I agree.