Judgment 1. This is plaintiffs appeal against a judgment of affirmance. 2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 23-6-1976 executed by defendant 2nd party in favour of defendant No.1 was void, inoperative, ineffective and not binding upon the plaintiff. The suit related to plot No.740 over an area of 1 Katha 5 Dhurs situate in village Sonhauli in the District of Khagaria. 3. In short, the plaintiffs case was that she being the only issue of her father used to get substantial amount from her father out of love and affections on occasions and with the accumulated amount she purchased 5 Bighas 15 Kathas 17 Dhurs of land for a sum of Rs.500.00 by a registered sale deed dated 10-2-1943 from Ayodhya Singh and her name was mutated and she had been paying rent to the State of Bihar and for the part of the land acquired by the State Government she had also received compensation. 4. The plaintiffs case was that the sale deed i.e. dated 23-6-1976 executed by defendant second party in favour of defendant No. 1 in respect of 1 Katha 5 Dhurs of Survey Plot No. 740 was a fraudulent document. The plaintiff when got the knowledge of the same on 30-6-1976, the plaintiff instituted the present suit. 5. In short, the plaintiffs case was that the suit property was her self acquired property. 6. The suit was contested by defendant 2nd party. The defence was that Jaidev Singh and Nathuni Singh were brothers. Nathuni Singh died in 1936 in the state of jointness with his brother Jaidev Singh and thus Jaidev became the Karta of the family. Ayodhya Singh was the "Bahnoi" of Nathuni Singh and Jaidev Singh. Further defence was that Mahtab Singh, grandfather of Nathuni Singh and Jaidev Singh had also one brother Kallar Singh whose son was Khub Lal Singh and Khublal Singhs son is Surendra Singh. 7. The defendant further pleaded that the family of Banshi and Khub Lal had lands in Khata No.130 in the Farzi name of Ayodhya Singh and Khublal Singh got nominal sale deed executed from Ayodhya Singh in respect of his share in the name of Ram Charitra Singh. 7. The defendant further pleaded that the family of Banshi and Khub Lal had lands in Khata No.130 in the Farzi name of Ayodhya Singh and Khublal Singh got nominal sale deed executed from Ayodhya Singh in respect of his share in the name of Ram Charitra Singh. The defendants also pleaded that Jaidev Singh as Karta of the family of defendant 2nd and 3rd party got a nominal sale deed executed by Ramayodhya Singh in the name of his wife Parvati Devi in respect of 5 Bighas 15 Kathas 17 Dhurs which was in possession of the joint family of defendant second party and defendant 3rd party. 8. Further defence was that in the year 1965 there was partition between the defendant second and 3rd party in which 7 Kathas 10 Dhurs and odd besides other lands were allotted to defendant 3rd party but the deed was not registered because of some mistake. The defence pleaded that the plaintiff had no concern, whatsoever, with the suit land. 9. In short, the defence was that the suit property was a joint family property and on partition it fell to defendant second party and, therefore, the defendant second party had all the rights to execute the sale deed in question in favour of defendant No.1. 10. The trial court dismissed the suit. It held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the suit property along with other properties were not purchased in the name of Ayodhya Singh from the joint family fund, as alleged by defendant 1st party. It further held that the plaintiff had failed to prove her case to the effect that the suit property along with other lands were acquired by her from the amount received by her from her naihar. 11. Against the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal. The court of appeal below dismissed the plaintiffs appeal and held that it was not necessary to go into the question regarding genuineness of the purchase of the land in the name of Ayodhya Singh as being Benamidar or the real owner of the suit land. It further held that the properties purchased in the name of the plaintiff from Ayodhya Singh on 10-2-1943 always remained the properties of the joint family consisting of plaintiff, defendant second party and defendant 3rd party. It further held that the properties purchased in the name of the plaintiff from Ayodhya Singh on 10-2-1943 always remained the properties of the joint family consisting of plaintiff, defendant second party and defendant 3rd party. The court of appeal below further held that the suit properties appertaining to plot No.740 was acquired out of the joint family fund of the defendant second and 3rd party in the name of the plaintiff and the members of the joint family always remained in its joint possession. 12. Having held as above, the court of appeal below held that the plaintiff did not acquire title to the land appertaining to plot No. 740 on the basis of the sale deed executed in her favour by Ayodhya Singh on 10-2-1943 and that the land of this plot belonged to defendants second and the 3rd sets. On these findings the plaintiffs appeal was dismissed. Hence the present second appeal by the plaintiff. 13. As the instant appeal is being decided on a very short question of law, the other facts as pleaded by the parties are not necessary to be stated. 14. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff appellant submitted that the finding given by the court of appeal below to the effect that the suit property was purchased by the joint family in the name of the plaintiff was not binding in second appeal, in the absence of a further finding that there was sufficient nucleus in the joint family at the time of its purchase. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff appellant further submitted that the court of appeal below had gone wrong to state that it was not necessary to record a finding on the question of Benami (i.e. whether Ayodhya was a Benamidar of the joint family). 16. I have already stated above that, in short, the plaintiffs case was that the suit property was her self acquired property; whereas, the defence was that it was a joint family property which on partition came to defendants second party and hence the defendant second party had all the right to deal with the property. 17. The learned counsel for the respective parties have taken me through the judgment of the court of appeal below as well as through the judgment of the trial court in the detail. 17. The learned counsel for the respective parties have taken me through the judgment of the court of appeal below as well as through the judgment of the trial court in the detail. In my opinion, none of the two courts, though both the courts non-suited the plaintiff, approached the case from the right perspective. It is well settled that if in fact at the date of acquisition of a particular property the joint family had sufficient nucleus for acquiring it, the property in the name of any member of the joint family should be presumed to be acquired from out of family funds and so to form part of the joint family property, unless the contrary is shown. Under Hindu Law, when a property stands in the name of a member of a joint family, it is incumbent upon those asserting that it is joint family property to establish it. When it is proved or admitted that a family possessed sufficient nucleus with the aid of which the member might have made the acquisition, the law raises a presumption that it is a joint family property and the onus is shifted to the individual member the aid of the said nucleus. This is a well settled proposition of law. On a perusal of the judgment of the court of appeal below, it is abundantly clear that the court of appeal below has not gone into the question of the sufficiency of nucleus in the joint family. The court of appeal below has not given the finding that the joint family was possessed of sufficient nucleus for the purchase of the suit property along with other properties at the time when they were purchased. It is true that both the courts held that the suit property was acquired out of joint family fund, but in view of the well settled principle of law, as just stated above, only this finding was not enough to non-suit the plaintiff. It was essential for the court of appeal below to go into the question of the sufficiency of nucleus of the joint family at the time of the purchase. It was essential for the court of appeal below to go into the question of the sufficiency of nucleus of the joint family at the time of the purchase. Thus, I hold that there is enough force in the first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and thus, the only finding that the suit property was purchased by the joint family in the name of the plaintiff was not enough to non-suit the plaintiff without there being a further finding that there was sufficient nucleus in the joint family at the time of the purchase. 18. As the appeal succeeds in the very first submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, the second submission advanced by the counsel need not be decided. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The Judgment and decree of the court of appeal below are set aside and the case is sent back to the court of appeal below for fresh decision, after hearing the parties, on the materials already on the record and in accordance with law. The parties will be at liberty to argue all the points available to them and the court of appeal below will decide the case in accordance with law. However, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.