JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member. - This is plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 10.9.76 passed by learned Addl. Commissioner, Jhansi Division, dismissing the first, appeal No. 23 of 1976-77 district Jalaun which was preferred against and the decree dated 12.11.1970 passed by S.D.O. Jalaun in a case under section 229-B of Act I of 1951 dismissing the plaintiff's suit. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that plaintiff appellant Suraj Prasad had field a suit against Ram Kishan and others in respect of plots no. 656 area 4.48 acres 656 kha area 0.04 acres 656 area 0.07 acres and 660 area 0.18 acres situate in village Jalaun within the Municipal areas with the allegation that the land was acquired by the plaintiff and defendant no. 1 & 2 and their father Ram Lal that they had been in joint possession, that they were grove holders of the land, that after the death of Ram Lal name of defendant no. I only was recorded on account of his being the elder brother although all the three brothers were in joint possession. He therefore, prayed for a declaration that he was co-bhumidhar with defendants, prayed for a declaration no. 1 and 2. 3. Ram Swarup, defendant no. 2 supported the case of the plaintiff and alleged that his share in the land in suit was ?rd. 4. Ram Krishna defendant no. I denied the case of the plaintiff as well as that of defendant no. 2 and alleged that they had not been in possession from the last 15 years, that their suit was barred, that all the brothers had separated after the death of their father and lived separately in different houses, that the land in suit was grove in which there was temple, that two Sadhus were living in the temple but they went to Ayodhya where they died about 50-60 years ago and the land in suit became abandoned property, that defendant no. 1 started worshipping the idols in the temple and also started managing the land in suit, that he alone was in possession, that he was a grove holder and became bhumidhar after the abolition of Zamindari and that the plaintiff and defendant no. I were stopped from challenging his possession and title. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. I were stopped from challenging his possession and title. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 6. It was argued by the Ld. counsel for the appellant vehemently that admission of the contesting defendant in his statement dated 25.3.58 was not property taken into account by the courts below which is best piece of evidence against the defendant who had stated that his maternal grand father, Murlidhar had been in possession over the grove in question then his father had been in possession and after his death he was in possession and the fact that fact that the contesting defendant lived jointly with the plaintiff and the other defendants upto 25.3.1975 was also not properly considered by the courts below and the property will be deemed to have been acquired and due to it the presumption that the property was acquired jointly by the Joint Hindu Family members in the name of the karta of the family the contesting defendant being eldest brother, the inevitable presumption of its being joint holding of the parties was wrongly not draw and the finding of the courts below is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on Indradeo v. Ramgobind, 1964 R.D. Page 70, Chhotey Lal and others v. Jhandey Lal, A.I.R. 1972 Alld. Page 424, Ram Kishore v. Ram Awadh, R.D. 1975 page 218, Ram Chander Dube v. D.D.C., 1977 A.W.C. Page 731, Janki and others v. D.D.C., 1979 R.D. page 159. 7. In reply it was argued that the concurrent finding of fact by both the courts below should not be interfered with in second appeal; that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving his case and he cannot rely on one part of the admission of the contesting defendant and ignore the other part of his previous statements which are not in conformity, in any way, with the case set up by the plaintiff; that the contesting defendant acquired right by adverse possession not as karta of the joint family and no co-tenancy rights in the land in suit can be conferred on the plaintiff or on other defendant. Reliance has been placed on Amidu Khatun v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1963 Alld. Reliance has been placed on Amidu Khatun v. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1963 Alld. Page 260, Sumeru v. Nathu Singh, 1973 R.D. Page 70, Raghavamma v. Chenchamma, A.I.R. 1964 S.C. page 186, Mooga v. Shankar, 1977 R.D. page 120 and Bishambhar Nath v. D.D.C., 1970 R.D. page 387. 8. The rulings relied upon on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In A.I.R. 1972 Alld. page 424 it has been held that it is fallacious to say that members of the a joint Hindu Family owing occupancy holding are not tenants of the holding because they have no interest in it. In lay the members of the joint Hindu Family together became tenants of the holding. Hindu Law does not recognise joint Hindu family or co-parcenary unlike a deity or idol as a juristic personality capable of holding property as an entity separate from the members of the family. In 1977 A.W.C. page 731 it has been held that a joint family is capable of possessing joint property which would be for the benefit of members constituting it and it was further held that bhumidhari land purchased from the nucleus of joint family by the karta or by members for benefit of all, it can be considered to be bhumidhari of all persons consisting joint family and Hindu Law can be resorted to in respect of matters for which no provision is made in the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act. In 1975 R.D. page 218 presumption of jointness regarding property acquired by members of joint family as karta can be made that the acquisition was in representative capacity. In 1979 R.D. page 159 it was held that property coming from time of common ancestor of the parties found recorded in the name of one of the real brothers the finding recognising co-tenureholdership was justified. In Indradeo v. Ramgobind, 1964 R.D. 70 it was held that Hindu Laws presumption of joint acquisition although recorded in the name of one member when all other members are in possession according to their share can be raised. In Indradeo v. Ramgobind, 1964 R.D. 70 it was held that Hindu Laws presumption of joint acquisition although recorded in the name of one member when all other members are in possession according to their share can be raised. Thus it will be clear that these rulings are of no help to the appellant because his case has been that it was joint acquisition of himself, his brothers and his father which could not be proved and the courts below have come to a concurrent finding that the plaintiff and the other defendant are not in possession and only the contesting defendant is in possession. The burden of proving his case was on the plaintiff according to 1964 (S.C.) page 186 which never shifts. The alleged statement of the contesting defendant dated 25.3.58 read as a whole also does not entitle the plaintiff to any relief because if his maternal grand father, Murlidhar, had been in possession who died 40 year prior to 1958 the plaintiff was not even born at the time of the death of Murlidhar and could not have inherited and co-shared under Act I of 1901. The concurrent findings of both the courts below cannot be interfered with because it has not been proved that there has been inadequate appreciation of evidence by the lower court and that some evidence was not considered at all". 9. The contesting defendant acquired rights by adverse possession which cannot be conferred on the plaintiff or the other defendants as the disputed land was not acquired by nucleus of join Hindu family fund by the plaintiff as a karta because according to the plaint case it was acquired jointly by the parties and their father, which has not been proved and it the presence of the father the contesting defendant could not have been karta of the joint Hindu family. 10. In the present society notions of Hindu Law cannot be strictly presumed. In the present society the members of joint Hindu Family are living jointly and owning ancestral property jointly, but they are acquiring separately separate properties from their own private funds and such properties cannot be held to have been acquired by the joint Hindu Family with its joint fund with the help of notions of Hindu Law. 11. In the present society the members of joint Hindu Family are living jointly and owning ancestral property jointly, but they are acquiring separately separate properties from their own private funds and such properties cannot be held to have been acquired by the joint Hindu Family with its joint fund with the help of notions of Hindu Law. 11. Similar is the case regarding acquisition by adverse possession by an individual member of a joint Hindu family as is the case at present. Even if the parties taken for granted to have lived jointly there is no bar against an individual member in acquiring property solely for himself by adverse possession or by his separate fund. Unless it is proved that the property was acquired by adverse possession either with the help of nucleus of join Hindu Family or its resources or help of members of joint Hindu family for the benefit of joint Hindu Family and members constituting it cannot be presumed by merely living jointly, that acquisition by adverse possession by an individual member of a joint Hindu Family without the aforesaid helps of the nucleus resources and members of joint Hindu Family, for his benefit was acquired for the benefit of joint Hindu family which ingredients have not been proved by the plaintiff, therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed as it has got no force. 12. In view of the above, this second appeal is hereby dismissed with costs and the judgments and decrees of the courts below are hereby confirmed.