JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a second appeal against the judgment and decree passed by Sri R.K. Garg, Addl. Commissioner, Faizabad division, Faizabad, dated July 4, 1968 in appeal no. 1080 Sultanpur in re Ram Kalp v. Babu Lal. 2. I have heard the Id. counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The plaintiff Babu Lal, Bekaran and Sukhai had filed a declaratory suit seeking a declaration of there th share in the land in suit. The defendants Ram Kalp and Harshraj contested the suit claiming to be the sole Sirdars of the land. The trial court decreed the suit. Ram Kalp went in appeal which was dismissed by the lower appellate court on July 4, 1968. He has now come up in second appeal. During the pendency of his appeal Babu Lal had died and he has been succeeded by his heirs Smt. Lakhraji and Smt. Phulraji. The Id. counsel for the appellant has argued that the lower court has erred in believing that the land belonged to all the co-shares and was jointly purchased or acquired. His contention was that the property was of Raghubar, father of the appellant and was not acquired jointly. The evidence on record establishes that one Jiawan was the hereditary tenant of plot nos. 445, 466, 467 and 469 at the time of settlement. Plot no. 445 correspond to the new nos. 523, 466, 562, 467, 563, 469, 565. It is further established that Jiawan had five sons, Dhiraj, Raghubar, Nageshwar, Babu Lal and Raj Pal. Ram Kalp is the S/o Raghubar and Sukhai is the S/o Babu Lal. The case of Ram Kalp was that the sons of Jiawan had separated during his life-time and his property was partitioned. This fact of partition was admitted in his evidence by the plaintiff Babu Lal as well as his witnesses. In view of this positive admission it can no longer be said that the descendants of Jiawan inherited a joint holding. Moreover, only 4 of the plots given in the plaint were included in the holding of Jiawan. The other plots held by Jiawan were nos. 195 and 465 which do not find mention in the plaint. On the other hand the remaining plot mentioned in the plaint viz. plot nos. Moreover, only 4 of the plots given in the plaint were included in the holding of Jiawan. The other plots held by Jiawan were nos. 195 and 465 which do not find mention in the plaint. On the other hand the remaining plot mentioned in the plaint viz. plot nos. 1920, 1923, 1918, 2091, 2093 and 2182 of List 'B' were not included in the holding of Jiawan. All the plots in suit are recorded in the name of Raghubar alone in the settlement Khatauni with a duration of six to 14 years. This evidence clearly belies the plaintiff's claim and supports the contention of the defendant-appellants. In view of this clear-cut evidence the finding of the courts below that there was a joint holding of which Raghubar was the Karta is quite pervesr. It is true that the appellant has admitted that both parties have a joint or common house. The exact words used by him are, "Vadi aur Mera Ghar Ikattha he hai." But legally it is possible for more than one family to live in a common or joint house and have their separate cultivation or business. In fact such thing very often occurs after a formal partition. 4. After a formal partition it is no longer open to an erstwhile member of joint Hindu family to claim any share in the property recorded exclusively in the name of another erstwhile member of such family. All rights of co-parceners in a joint Hindu family property will cease in any property recorded in the name exclusively in the name of other co-parceners. Had the joint Hindu family continued it could be argued that the name of only one Member of the family was recorded over any portion of the property in a representative capacity of alternatively it came out of the family pool. But after the partition, the presumption would be that the property standing in the exclusive name of an erstwhile co-parceners was either allotted to him during partition or was exclusively acquired by him from his earning or from other source. The court below have also recorded a perverse finding about the joint possession of the property merely on the number of witnesses produced by either side. Under the provision of the Indian Evident Act evidence has to be assessed nor on the basis of number of witnesses. The court below have also recorded a perverse finding about the joint possession of the property merely on the number of witnesses produced by either side. Under the provision of the Indian Evident Act evidence has to be assessed nor on the basis of number of witnesses. But on their credibility, consistency and the combined effect of oral and documentary evidence. Here the documentary evidence is entirely in favour of the defendant-appellant. Raghubar and subsequently Ram Kalp S/o Raghubar are constantly recorded as sole tenants in the Khasra and Khataunis spreading over e number of year u/s 44 of the Land Revenue Act eateries in the land records will be deemed to be correct unless the contrary is proved. In the present case the contrary has not been proved. The plaintiff has not been able to file any documentary evidence including land receipt to show his possession. As to his oral evidence, his 3 witnesses contradict each other. Thus according to Kedar Nath P.W.1. the crop sown during the current year in the largest plot of the land in dispute was Jwar and thereafter gram, wheat and barely but according to P.W. 2, Baba Lal the crops sown in the filed were gram Masoor and Arhaar. He has also added that this crop was sown by the appellant Ram Kalp. Again according to Kedar Nath to the North of the largest plot is the filed of Kakey Singh and to the south, that of Manorath Ahir, but according to Babu Lal to the North of this plot is the field of Sukhai and to the south the field of Sukhai and the south field of Sukhdeo. All the witnesses of the plaintiff including himself have admitted the fact of partition, of the land 15 to 16 years back. After partition the question of joint possession does not arise at all. Thus the finding of the courts below about joint possession has to be discarded. 5. The trial court has also erred in law in holding on one hand that the property was in joint possession and on the other that possession of one shall be deemed to be the possession of all. The correct position of law is that only when a co-tenancy is established the possession of all the co-tenant is the possession of all the co-tenants jointly. The correct position of law is that only when a co-tenancy is established the possession of all the co-tenant is the possession of all the co-tenants jointly. But in a case where co-tenancy has been challenged and has not been proved, such a presumption cannot be made. 6. The Id. counsel for the appellant has referred to Chhangur Chand v. Jang Bhadur Chand 1950 R.D. p.31 in which case the facts were similar. There also it had been held that where a plaintiff seeks division of a holding u/s 49 of the U.P. Tenancy Act 1939 on the ground that it was ancestral, the burden lay heavily upon him that the holding was acquired by the common ancestor in the representative capacity on behalf of the members of the Joint family. The plaintiffs having failed to prove that the holding failed to prove that the holding in suit was ancestral could not claim co-tenancy. I would fully uphold this Principle in the present case. 7. I would, therefore, hold that the judgments of the courts below are erroneous in law and their findings are perverse. I accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the orders of the courts below. The suit stands dismissed.