JUDGMENT S.K. Lakhtakia, Member - This is an appeal under Section 331 of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act against the judgement and decree of the Additional Commissioner, Varanasi Division dated January 12, 1979 in appeal No. 98/296 of 1977/Jaunpur confirming the judgment and decree passed by Assistant Collector Ist Class, Jaunpur dated July 30, 1977 in a suit under Section 229-B of U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act in respect of land situated in village Husainabad, Pargana Haveli, Tehsil and District Jaunpur. 2. The fact of this case in brief are as follows. Rama Kant, Shiv Kant sons of Jagarnath and Ashok Kumar son of Kamlakant, brought a suit under Section 229-B of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act claiming co-tenancy alongwith the defendant No. 1 to 5 and claiming half share therein. The following pedigree was given in the plaint:- It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs and the defendants are members of joint Hindu family and the land in dispute was taken in the name of Sitaram father of defendants No. 1 and 2 while he as a minor and was a member of joint Hindu family even all the members of the family came into possession of the land. The names of the ancestors of the plaintiffs as well as their own were omitted from being recorded in ancestors of the plaintiffs as well as their ancestors have been occupying half share of the land. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed to be declared to be co-tenants of the defendants and claimed half share therein. 3. The suit was contested by the defendants on the ground that the land was not purchased in representative capacity and that it had been purchased only by Ram Padarath Shukla exclusively in the name of his son Sitaram out of his own earnings and that it had not been purchased for the joint family. It has also been alleged that Ram Padarath Shukla and Salig Ram Shukla both were separate from each other and were not members of joint Hindu family and that both of them were in service at different places. Ram Pradarath being posted at Varanasi and Salik Ram being posted at Champaran and Motihari etc. The defendants, therefore, denied the plaintiff's title. Ram Pradarath being posted at Varanasi and Salik Ram being posted at Champaran and Motihari etc. The defendants, therefore, denied the plaintiff's title. It was also contended by the defendants that an area of .13 out of area of .1 in plot No. 693 has become Abadi, hence the revenue court has no jurisdiction about this area. 4. The trial court decreed the suit though the area of 12.8 out of plot No. 693 on an issue referred to the S.D.O. under Section 331-A of the U.P. Z.A. and L.R. Act it was held to be Abadi. The suit was decreed about the whole of the area of plot No. 693 as well as the other plot aforesaid the suit was dismissed about 128 acres of plot No. 693. This appeal, therefore, also is not concerned with the aforesaid area and has been filed only with respect to the other plots. The appeal against that judgment was also dismissed, hence this second appeal of the defendants. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties. Perused the records and the impugned judgment. 6. The pedigree given by the plaintiffs is almost accepted to the defendants except with a slight variation but it does not affect the merits of the case. It is proved from the evidence that the disputed land was purchased in 1900 in the name of Sitaram in lieu of Rs. 60/- by his father who was minor at that time. According to the plaintiffs both Ram Padarath and Salik Ram remained joint throughout their life and the family separated after the death of Ram Padarath. According to the defendants the separation had occurred in 1886 itself while it is admitted by both the parties that both Salik Ram and Ram Padarath were in service and lived at several places. It is also admitted that Salig Ram was at Champaran and other places in Bihar while Ram Padarath was an overseer at Varanasi and Sitaram was the son of Ram Padarth. Both the courts below have held that both Ram Padarath and Salig Ram were members of joint Hindu family and, therefore, the land was purchased only in representative capacity in the name of Sitaram although all the members of joint Hindu family were benefited and the acquisition had been made for the whole family. 7. Both the courts below have held that both Ram Padarath and Salig Ram were members of joint Hindu family and, therefore, the land was purchased only in representative capacity in the name of Sitaram although all the members of joint Hindu family were benefited and the acquisition had been made for the whole family. 7. The only point to be determined in this appeal is whether the acquisition in the name of Sitaram had been made only for the family of Ram Padarath or it was an acquisition of the whole family including that of Salig Ram. 8. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that Ram Padarath and Salig Ram both were in service at different places and they lived with their families at a such long distance form each other that their families cannot be held to be joint in any case and, therefore they could acquire separate properly even though they remained co-parceners and formal partition of the property might have not been made. 9. As against this argument learned counsel for the respondent contended that if there is no formal partition in the family the acquisition would be deemed to have been made for the whole family and, therefore, a single co-parceners could not acquire property for himself. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh and others v. Ramchandra Revgowda Sankh and another A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1076 in which the following observation was made by the Supreme Court:- "There is no presumption that a Hindu family merely because it is joint, Possesses any joint property. The burden of proving that any particular property is joint family property, is, therefore, in the first instance upon the person who claims it as coparcenary property. But if the possession of a nucleus of the joint family property is either admitted or proved, any acquisition made by a member of the joint family is presumed to be joint family property. This is however subject to the limitation that the joint family property must be such as with its aid the property in question could have been acquired. This is however subject to the limitation that the joint family property must be such as with its aid the property in question could have been acquired. It is only after the possession of an adequate nucleus is shown, that the onus shifts on to the person who claims the property as self-acquisition to affirmatively make out that the property was acquired without any aid from the family estate." The above observation made by the Supreme Court clearly lays down that there is no bar for the acquisition of property separately even by a coparcener if it can be proved that funds from the common nucleus were not utilised. It has also been laid down in the above ruling that the burden of proof that the common nucleus had been utilised for the purchase of the property lies on the person who alleges it. 11. In Saktu and others v. Dy. D.C. and others 1982 Allahabad Civil Journal 587, it has been held that:- "Even a Karta of a joint family can acquire and hold land in his name and for his own benefit and it cannot be treated to be a joint family property merely because he happens to be the Karta of the family at the time of the alleged acquisition of land. It has to be positively proved that when the land was acquired by the Karta of the joint family he had acquired it in the representative capacity for the entire body of coparcener and it has been treated as such by the members of the family." In view of this ruling also it was argued by the learned for the appellant that in this case also the burden lay upon the plaintiffs to prove that funds from the common nucleus had been spent for the purchase of the property but they have miserably failed in proving the same, hence the suit was liable to be dismissed. It was argued that the nucleus there is amply evidence on record to prove that both Salig Ram and Ram Padarath, apart from having some agricultural property were in service and, therefore, they were separate from each other and so they could easily purchase land separately for their own benefit and in such circumstances the land acquired by one brother could not be deemed to have been acquired for the benefit of the rest of the family." 12. In my opinion this argument is not without force. The defendants' ancestor Ram Padarath was an overseer at Varanasi and, therefore, was a man of good status, hence it could not be difficult for him even in those times to have saved such a small sum of Rs. 60/- from his own separate earnings from purchasing the land in dispute for the benefit of himself and his own branch. The presumption of jointness in the instant case neither can be raised nor can be of any benefit to the plaintiff. Obviously Salig Ram and Ram Padarath were living separately in U.P. and Bihar and, therefore, even if their agricultural land or ancestral house in the village might have been joint they were separate from each other for all practical purposes. The mere fact that the remaining agricultural land or the ancestral house to which they might have been visiting very casually, if were joint would not mean that both of them had joint living and had not separated from each other. 13. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon a Mukhtarnama of 1911 which was executed jointly by Ram Pardarath and Salikram through which they had appointed Shiv Netra Singh, Shiv Nath Tewari and Lalloo Singh Mukhtaram alleging that they were joint. It was, therefore, argued that this Mukhtarnama estops the defendants from claiming separation of the family in 1901. Both the courts below have accepted this argument but in my opinion this Mukhtarnama is of no help to the plaintiffs specially when the separation of the family on account of service of Salig Ram and Ram Padarath is proved to the hilt. The assertion in the Mukhtarnama could merely point to the jointness of the mere ancestral agricultural land and the house but this does not prove that they were living jointly as well. There is no difficulty in having a Khata joint even without an outsider and there is no presumption that such co-tenure-holder should be living jointly. Consequently the mere jointness of the Khata about the ancestral property would not disprove the defendants' case and the finding of the courts below based on the point of Mukhtarnama is unworthy of being accepted. 14. Consequently the mere jointness of the Khata about the ancestral property would not disprove the defendants' case and the finding of the courts below based on the point of Mukhtarnama is unworthy of being accepted. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents placed further reliance upon some mortgage deed executed in the years 1922 and 1919 by Sri Mathi Jagannath in favour of Roud persons in which the disputed land was also shown as mortgaged property and it was submitted that such inclusion of the land in the mortgage deeds indicates that the plaintiffs' ancestor Salig Ram had been claiming this property during the life time of Ram Padarath as well. 15. I do not understand how far can these documents be of any help to the plaintiffs or the principle of estoppel can be used against the defendants when they were not a party to such mortgagees. In later years i.e. in 1951 and 1953 some mortgaged land of the plaintiffs and their ancestors was auctioned by the Civil Court but the disputed land, even though included in the mortgage deed was excluded and was not put to auction. It itself is an evidence of the fact that the Civil Court did not record the disputed land to be belonging to the plaintiffs. Consequently the finding of the lower courts and the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents based on these mortgage deeds are unworthy of being accepted. As a matter of fact the burden lay upon the plaintiffs to prove that funds from the common nucleus had been utilised for the purchase of the disputed land but no evidence has been led on this point. There is not an iota of evidence to prove that common family funds had been used for the purchase of the land while on the contrary it is amply proved that Ram Padarath was an overseer and, therefore, had sufficient means and funds of his own to purchase the land. Consequently in view of the rulings quoted above even though it is held that Ram Padarath was a member of a joint Hindu family and for argument sake was even Karta thereof he could acquired separate land since he had separate earnings which were not subject to being pooled in the funds of the family. Consequently in view of the rulings quoted above even though it is held that Ram Padarath was a member of a joint Hindu family and for argument sake was even Karta thereof he could acquired separate land since he had separate earnings which were not subject to being pooled in the funds of the family. The plaintiffs' case that the land was purchased for the benefit of Salig Ram and his successors also does not, therefore, hold good and is unworthy of being accepted. 16. Further the entries in the present case are also of great relevance. The entries have been continuing from 1900 till date in the names of the defendant. The trial court has observed that the plaintiffs got their adverse possession fictitiously recorded in 1370 Fasli so that the plaintiffs could make out a case against the defendants. The trial court has taken the view that the plaintiffs got the entries made in their favour so that they could obtain some documentary evidence in support of their case to be brought in future. Such entries are, therefore, of no help to the plaintiff and the observation of the trial court seems to be correct. The presumption of the correctness of long standing entries in this case is of a great value and cannot be ignored. The plaintiff's ancestor Salik Ram, while executing mortgage deeds in 1919 and 1922, fully knew that the entry in the papers was in the name of Sitaram but he did no take any steps to get his name recorded and allowed the entry to continue in favour of the latter. Consequently the entry in the name of Sitaram and his successors is not liable to be interfered with when the plaintiffs have miserably failed to prove that the land was purchased from the funds of the common nucleus and it did not belong to the common ancestors of Ram Padarath and Salig Ram. The plaintiffs' suit was, therefore, liable to be dismissed and was wrongly decreed. The 1st appeal deserved to have been allowed. 17. As a result of the above discussion I come to the conclusion that this second appeal must succeed and the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below must be set aside. The plaintiffs' suit was, therefore, liable to be dismissed and was wrongly decreed. The 1st appeal deserved to have been allowed. 17. As a result of the above discussion I come to the conclusion that this second appeal must succeed and the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below must be set aside. The appeal is, therefore, allowed and the judgment and decree passed by both the courts below are set aside and the plaintiffs' suit is dismissed with costs throughout.