JUDGMENT : Mohanty, J. - This appeal is by Defendants 1 to 4. One Rusi Samal had three sons, Anadi, Krishna, and Keshab Plaintiff-1 is the son of Krishna. Anadi is Plaintiff-2. Plaintiffs is the son of Anadi. Keshab has left two sons, Shama (d-1) and Brahmananda (d-2). Defendants 3 and 4 are the sons of Defendant-1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition filed by the Plaintiffs claiming partition of 10 annas and 8 pies interest in the family property. According to the Plaintiffs, the family was divided about three years prior to the institution of the suit in 1945. By that division, Defendants 1 to 4 remain joint, but live separate from the Plaintiffs. The defence case is that the family separated about 10 or 12 years back and that after separation, they have acquired some properties in which the Plaintiffs have got no interest. 2. The concurrent findings of both the courts below are: (1) That the family separated about three years prior to the institution of the suit, but not 10 or 12 years back; and (2) that the 7.49 acres of land purchased by Defendants 1 to 4 are not the Defendants self-acquired property, but are the joint family property in which the Plaintiffs have got 10 annas and eight pies interest. With these findings, the trial court has decreed the Plaintiffs' suit. On appeal, the learned District Judge affirmed the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the appeal. Against this order of the lower appellate court, Defendants 1 to 4 have come up in second appeal. 3. Mr. Subba Rao appearing for the Appellants has urged firstly, that the family separated about 10 or 12 years prior to the institution of the suit, and that the finding of the courts below on this point is wrong; and secondly, that even assuming that the family separated about three years prior to the institution of the suit, the seven and odd acres of land, which the Appellants claim not to be the joint family property, should be held to be the separate property of Defendants 1 to 4. 4. As regards the first point, His Lordship discusses the evidence and holds thus: We do nab find anything wrong in their finding on that point; and we are not inclined interfere in it. 5. 4. As regards the first point, His Lordship discusses the evidence and holds thus: We do nab find anything wrong in their finding on that point; and we are not inclined interfere in it. 5. As regards the second point, there is much force in the contention advanced by learned advocate for the Appellants. It appears from Ext. A, A-1, A-2 and Ext. B that the seven and odd acres of land which Defendants 1 and 2 claim to be their separate property have been acquired in the names of Defendants 1 and 2 between the years 1936 -39. The Plaintiff's case is that those joint family properties have been acquired with joint family funds. The learned District Judge has observed that the ancestral family land admittedly were 10 to 12 acres, and it is further undisputed that for the last 20 years the different members of the family have been visiting Calcutta, earning money there and sending the same home. The onus lies heavily on the Defendants to show that they kept all their earnings separate and treated the properties purchased out of their earnings as their separate property, but they have no evidence worth the name about it, excepting the uncorroborated testimony of Defendant No. 2 himself. 6. In our judgment, the learned District Judge has not correctly stated the law On this point. The normal state of every Hindu Family is joint, But there is no presumption that a family because it is joint possesses a joint property. Hindu law does not prohibit a coparcener of a joint Hindu family from acquiring any property for himself. A coparcener can, therefore, possess his own separate property, apart from his coparcenary interest in the joint family property. The disputed property stands in the names of Defendants 1 & 2. The title-deeds by which those properties were acquired stand in their names. A coparcener can, therefore, possess his own separate property, apart from his coparcenary interest in the joint family property. The disputed property stands in the names of Defendants 1 & 2. The title-deeds by which those properties were acquired stand in their names. Hence the natural presumption would be that it is the property which they have acquired out of their own earnings it is on the member challenging it to be a separate property & claiming it to be a part of the joint family property, to prove it by such evidence as to show beyond doubt either that they were purchased out of the joint family income, or that they have been so blended with the joint family estate that they have practically become a joint family property, But curiously enough, the courts below have proceeded with the case on the assumption that they are the joint family property and that the onus is on Defendants 1 and 2 to prove that it is their separate property. It appears that the family had ten or eleven acres of land of which more than six acres are in flood affected area. We have it in evidence that the income from that land is not sufficient enough to meet the needs of the family so much so that the members of the family went out to Calcutta for earning to supplement the income from land for the family sustenance. It cannot, therefore, be said that the family had sufficient nucleus out of their joint family property so as to enable it to purchase the dispute land. It appears that all the members used to send their earnings to the Karta of the family. It being so it should be proved as a fact that the Plaintiff-2, who was the Karta of the family kept that earning as a family fund and purchased the disputed land with that fund. But no attempt has been made by the Plaintiffs to prove it beyond making a general statement in the evidence of Plaintiff-to Plaintiff-2 who was all along the Karta of the family does not come forward to say as to bow and, with what money this property was acquired by the family. It is an admitted fact that Defendants 1 and 2 used to earn money in Calcutta. They had their own separate incomes. It is an admitted fact that Defendants 1 and 2 used to earn money in Calcutta. They had their own separate incomes. It is no wonder that they separately purchased the property in their names. The courts below have laid much stress on certain recitals in Ext. A &s indicating that the property was purchased with the joint family fund. It is this that there is a recital to the effect that the consideration under Ext. A was paid through Plaintiff-I. If were the fact that Plaintiff-1 paid it out of the joint fund of the family we do not understand why he took the Kabala in the names of Defendants 1 and 2 instead of in the names of Plaintiffs 1 and 2 and Defendants 1 and 2. The very fact that the consideration was paid through Plaintiff-I, but the Kabala was taken in the names of Defendants 1 and 2 indicates that it was purchased with the separate money of Defendants 1 and 2. Otherwise, we find no reason why be should take it in their names instead of in the name of the Karta of the family or in the names of all the members of the family. In view of this fact, we do not agree with the courts below that Defendants 1 and 2 have miserably failed to prove their separate acquisition. But on the other hand, evidence on the side of the Plaintiffs is not satisfactory enough to prove that it was acquired with the joint family fund. 7. It is contended that the property acquired by individual members during the continuance of the jointness of the family was blended with the joint family property so much so that it has become a joint family property. This argument was advanced on the footing has Defendants 1 to 4 have not proved by any evidence that they ever kept the income of this land separately and that they have kept any separate account of it. Even assuming that they mixed up the income of this land with their joint family income and allowed it to be enjoyed by the joint family, we think it would no be sufficient to make it a joint family property. 8. As the law stands, the onus is on the person who alleges that it has been thrown into the common stock, to prove it beyond doubt. 8. As the law stands, the onus is on the person who alleges that it has been thrown into the common stock, to prove it beyond doubt. As has been said above, the mere user of that property for the joint family purpose cannot be taken as showing that the property has been thrown into the common stock. It must be proved that the acquirer of that property has thrown it voluntarily into the common stock with the intention abandoning all separate claims on it. But no such evidence has been adduced on the side of the Plaintiffs to prove such an intention on the part of Defendants 1 and 2. In such circumstances, we cannot accept the findings of the courts below with regard to the seven and odd acres of land which the Appellants claim to be their separate property. In our opinion, this should be taken as their separate property. We would, therefore, allow this appeal in part to this effect that 7.48 acres of land should not be the subject matter of partition as between both the parties; and in the circumstances of the case both parties should bear their own costs. Panigrahi, C.J. 9. I agree. Final Result : Allowed