JUDGMENT Om Prakash, J. - The heirs of Shri Shyam Lal, one of the defendants, thereinafter referred to as the defendant-appellant have filed this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16th August, 1974 of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Kanpur, and the other defendants filed a cross-objection. For the sake of convenience, both the appeal and the cross-objection are taken up together for decision. 2. The facts are that there was a Joint family, the Karta of which was Shri Badri Prasad, who bad three sons. The plaintiff, a middle son of Shri Badri Prasad, filed a suit for partition claiming that the properties, as detailed in schedule 1 to schedule 4, are joint family properties and his ?rd share in all the said properties be demarcated by meets and bounds. The eldest son, whose heirs have filed the instant appeal, opposed the contention of the plaintiff and denied that all the properties belong to the joint family. The third youngest son, who has filed cross-objection, contended that all the properties comprised in schedule 1 to schedule 4 were joint family properties. 3. The trial Court took the view that item no. 1 of schedule 1, which is a house, was ancestral property and, therefore, the suit for partition of the said property was decreed in respect of ?rd share in that house. Schedule 4 comprises of mortgages rights in six house properties. Two mortage-deeds were in the name of Shri Badri Prasad and in the remaining four mortgage deeds, the name of the defendant-appellant appeared. So far as the mortgagee rights in respect of the house for which the mortgage-deeds existed in the name of Shri Badri Prasad are concerned, the trial court held that those two mortgagee rights under those two mortgage-deeds belong to the family, but rejected the case of the plaintiff in respect of mortgagee rights arising from the four mortgage-deeds, which stood in the name of the defendant-appellant. Rest of the properties were not held to be the joint family properties and in respect of that the suit was dismissed. 4. The plaintiff filed appeal before the appellate court and then it was held that all the three properties, comprised in schedule 1 belonged to the joint family. It was also held that the four mortgage-deeds in the name of the defendant-appellant belonged to the joint family. 4. The plaintiff filed appeal before the appellate court and then it was held that all the three properties, comprised in schedule 1 belonged to the joint family. It was also held that the four mortgage-deeds in the name of the defendant-appellant belonged to the joint family. Thus, the suit in respect of mortgagee right arising from all the six mortgage-deeds detailed in schedule 4, was decreed by the appellate court. Rest of the judgment of the trial Court was affirmed by the appellate court. 5. Aggrieved, the defendant-appellants have filed this appeal. I have heard Shri S.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellants, Sri V.K.S. Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent and Shri R. Pandey, learned Counsel for the third set of defendants on the cross-objection. 6. The submission of Sri Srivastava is that the approach of the appellate court, that since there was joint family, therefore, it will be deemed to have possessed the properties, for which the suit has been decreed, is erroneous. He says that before decreeing the suit, the appellate court should have recorded a clear finding that there was rot only nucleus with the joint family, but sufficient nucleus to acquire the properties, for which the suit has been decreed by the appellate court. 7. The point of determination is whether the appellate court merely acted on any presumption that when there is joint family that will be deemed to have possessed properties, for which the suit was decreed at the appeal stage and whether the appellate court gave a finding about the sufficiency of nucleus for having acquired the properties, for which the suit was decreed at the stage of appeal. 8. So far as the legal proposition is concerned I agree with Sri Srivastava that there is no presumption in the law that a Hindu joint family owns joint properties. It is correct to say that whenever a joint family claim any property to be joint, then it has to be established that it had sufficient nucleus to acquire that property. 9. It is correct to say that whenever a joint family claim any property to be joint, then it has to be established that it had sufficient nucleus to acquire that property. 9. The trial court while dismissing the suit, inter alia, for two of the properties, included in schedule 1, and for mortgagee rights arising from the four mortgage-deeds executed in the name of the defendant-appellant, took the view that there was no sufficient nucleus with the joint family to acquire these properties ; but the appellate court found that Shri Badri Prasad carried on money leading business, he performed the marries of his two daughters, the marriages of three daughters and two sons of Sri Shyam Lal deceased (eldest son of Sri Badri Prasad) and of one son of Sri Pyare Lal (plaintiff) ; that according to the admission of Sri Shyam Lal deceased, Sri Badri Prasad had spent Rs. 10,000/- on each of the marriages and that he also carried on the business of wooden boxes. The money lending business was carried on by Sri Badri Prasad according to D.W. 6 Ganga Prasad, who was examined by the defendant, namely, Sri Shyam Lal (deceased). The appellate court took the view that Sri Badri Prasad having spent Rs. 10,000/- on each marriage would have carried on money lending business on a very large scale. From all this, the appellate court concluded that sufficient nucleus was with the family to acquire the properties, for which the suit was decreed at the appeal stage. 10. The above is purely a finding of fact and no question of law arises therefrom. 11. It was also argued by Sri Srivastava that there could be no presumption about the jointness, as the members of the family were separated. This plea of Sri Shyam Lal deceased was negatived by the courts below and from this finding also no question of law arises. 12. The position would have been different, had it been a case where no evidence referring to adequate nucleus would have been pointed out by the courts below. Findings have been recorded regarding the adequacy of nucleus by the appellate court. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises from the decision of the appellate court. 13. The position would have been different, had it been a case where no evidence referring to adequate nucleus would have been pointed out by the courts below. Findings have been recorded regarding the adequacy of nucleus by the appellate court. No question of law, much less a substantial question of law arises from the decision of the appellate court. 13. Coming to the cross-objection of the third set of defendants, it will suffice to say that no plea of dividing his share by meets and bounds was raised before the trial court and also no appeal was filed by him against the judgment of the trial court. If be wants division of his share, then he can proceed according to law before the trial court. 14. In the result, the appeal as well the cross-objection both are dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs.