Short Note : 1. This second appeal is by the defendant No. 1. The plaintiff Mst. Chaiti and defendant No.2 Mst. Rukmani are real sisters who are daughters of pati who died in December 1963. Pati was son of Budhu who pre-deceased Patio Narsingh (defendant No.1) is the son of Mahangu who was son of Mongara. Mongara and Budhu were real brothers and they were sons of Sukhdas. The suit relates to Khasra Nos. 94/1, 106, 107 and 111/1, total area 1225 acrts, situate in village Gumdel, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar. The plaintiff claims that she and her sister (defendant No.2) inherited these lands from their father pati on his death in December 1963 and that pati had inherited the same from his father Budhu who was the exclusive owner of these lands. On this basis the plaintiff has claimed declaration that she and her sister defendant No.2 are joint owners of the suit lands and defendant No. 1 being a trespasser in possession, the plaintiff is entitled to recover possession of the suit lands from defendant No.1. Held : There is no dispute that the lands were shown to be recorded from the very beginning in the name of Budhu alone and after his death they were mutated in favour of his son Pati without any objection by the other branch of the family to which defendant No.1 belongs. It was also not shown by defendant No.1 that the lands were acquired by Sukhdas or that there was any property belonging to the Hindu undivided family, if any so as to possibly provide any nucleus for the acquisition made by Budhu. In short, no fact or circumstance to justify a presumption that the property even if it stood exclusively in the name of Budhu and then his son pati, had in fact belonged to the Hindu undivided family has been proved. It may also be mentioned that the case of defendant No. 1 was that there was a partition in the family about 35 years prior to the snit as a result of which the suit lands were allotted to him. In the first place, such a partition treating the suit lands as joint family property has not been found proved. It may also be mentioned that the case of defendant No. 1 was that there was a partition in the family about 35 years prior to the snit as a result of which the suit lands were allotted to him. In the first place, such a partition treating the suit lands as joint family property has not been found proved. Moreover, no reason has been assigned why the lands should have been mutated in the name of pati, son of Budhu, after Budhu's death, and that the revenue records should have continued in that manner till pati's death in December 1963; if in fact the case of defendant No. 1 was true on this point. The finding of the first appellate Court on this question is based on evidence and cogent reasons have been given for reaching the conclusion. Appeal dismissed.