H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is defendants' second appeal from the Judgment and decree dated 3-7-1987 passed by (Sri. Y. S. Venkata Rao), Civil judge, Madhugiri in Regular Appeal No. 53 of 1983 (Gangamma v Krishnappa) dismissing the defendants' appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 23-6-1983 delivered by the principal Munsiff, Madhugiri, Tumkur District in O. S. No. 118 of 1979 decreeing the plaintiff-respondent's claim in the suit for half share and declaring the plaintiff to be entitled to half share in the suit property as well as for separate possession after partition. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case in brief are that the present plaintiff-respondent filed the above mentioned suit with the allegations to the effect that suit properties were joint family ancestral properties of defendant 3 and his father. According to the plaintiffs case, defendant 3 who is the father of the plaintiff, sold the properties mentioned in the schedule to the plaint in favour of appellants 1 and 2 by registered sale deed dated 10-6-1977. The plaintiffs case is that plaintiff has never been a party to the sale deed executed by defendant 3 in favour of defendants 1 and2. The plaintiffs further case is that plaintiff had got half share in the property in dispute. The plaintiff further alleged that the sale deed dated 10-6-1977 in the schedule properties has neither been for the benefit of family for any legal necessity nor to pay for any other purpose as there were no need. With these allegations, the plaintiff asserted that the sale deed dated 10-6-1977 was invalid and inoperative and it did not bind the plaintiffs share i. e. half share in the suit properties. Plaintiff further alleged that defendants-appellants 1 and 2 to have been in possession of the properties wrongfully. Hence, the cause of action for filing the suit for declaration of plaintiffs half share and its separate possession and for mesne profits. So the plaintiff has filed the suit for the said reliefs. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT 3 did not file any written statement in the case nor did contest the plaintiffs case. It has been brought to my notice that defendant 3 died during the course of the trial of the case and before the evidence had been recorded. So the plaintiff has filed the suit for the said reliefs. ( 3 ) DEFENDANT 3 did not file any written statement in the case nor did contest the plaintiffs case. It has been brought to my notice that defendant 3 died during the course of the trial of the case and before the evidence had been recorded. Defendants 1 and 2 filed the written statement denying the plaintiffs claim that the suit property has been joint ancestral properties i. e. joint ancestral properties of the plaintiff-respondent and defendant 3. The defendant 3's case has been that property was the self-acquired property of defendant 3 and that defendant 1 purchased the said property from defendant 3 by sale deed dated 10-6-1977 and as the property was self-acquired property of defendant 3, so the sale deed executed by defendant 3 was valid with respect to entire property and the plaintiff has got no claim nor has been entitled to claim the relief. The plaintiff by filing reapplication has stated that the suit property originally belonged to his grand-father and by sale deed dated 23-12-1974 executed by the grand-father and defendant 3, it was transferred to Chikkagopanna and thereafter it was owned by the plaintiff and his father. The case of the plaintiff in the reapplication had been that defendant 3 had been the Manager of the joint family and that the consideration was paid out of the joint income of the plaintiff and his father defendant 3. The plaintiff took the plea that defendant 3 could not transfer the entire property. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court framed the following issues:" (1) Are plaint schedule properties ancestral properties? (2) Does sale of suit properties in favour of defendants 1 and 2 not bind the share of plaintiff? (3) Is plaintiff entitled to possession of the suit properties? (4) Is plaintiff entitled to the mesne profits? (5) What order or decree?" ( 5 ) THE learned Munsiff who tried the case after examining the evidence on record held that plaintiff have been able to prove that the properties in dispute had been ancestral joint family properties and that the sale deed, executed by defendant 3 in favour of defendants-appellants namely, defendants 1 and 2, did not bind or affect the share of plaintiff-respondent in the property in dispute. The Court below further held that plaintiff has been entitled to decree for separate possession of the 1/2 share in suit properties as well as for mesne profits. With these findings the Trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit in total. Having felt aggrieved from the Judgment and decree of the Trial court, the defendants-appellants filed Regular Civil Appeal No. 53 of 1983 and the lower Appellate Court after having considered the contentions of the parties dismissed the defendants first appeal after having held that plaintiff has been able to prove that the property are joint family properties and that plaintiff-respondent has been entitled to share in those properties. It further held that defendants failed to prove that the suit properties were self-acquired separate properties of defendant 3. The learned lower Appellate Court after having arrived at these conclusions affirmed the findings and Judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the defendants appeal. ( 6 ) THAT having felt aggrieved from the Judgment and decreeof the lower Appellate Court, defendants 1 and 2 have preferred the second appeal in this Court. ( 7 ) I have heard Sri P. Eswara Bhat holding brief for Sri B. V. Acharya, learned Counsel for the appellants and Sri C. B. Srinivasan, appearing for the respondent. The learned Counsel for the appellants had made his best effort to pierce the findings of fact. The appellants learned Counsel submitted that the burden was on the plaintiff-respondent who claims the properties to be the joint ancestral properties of the parties. The learned Lower Court below erred in law in placing the burden on defendants-appellants and in recording the finding on the basis thereon and as such, the learned Counsel contended, the finding recorded by the learned Courts below to the effect that the properties in dispute is ancestral properties of the parties i. e. , the defendant 3 and the plaintiff-respondent. A contention has also been raised but later on it was not pressed and it was to the effect that defendant 3 did not appear in the witness box nor did he file the written statement and as such adverse presumption ought to have been drawn against. Plaintiffs case is that as plaintiff and defendant 3 were father and son. A contention has also been raised but later on it was not pressed and it was to the effect that defendant 3 did not appear in the witness box nor did he file the written statement and as such adverse presumption ought to have been drawn against. Plaintiffs case is that as plaintiff and defendant 3 were father and son. On the basis of these contentions, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the finding and the decision of the Courts below suffer from error of law. ( 8 ) ON behalf of the respondent, Sri C. B. Srinivasan, the learned Counsel submitted that firstly burden of proof loses all its importance when both the sides have adduced evidence. Once the parties have adduced evidence, question of burden of proof loses its importance and remains one of academic interest and the question remains of appreciation of evidence and it was for the Court to record the finding on questions of fact involved under the issues. Sri C. B. Srinivasan, further submitted that so far as the contention that defendants had not been examined and adverse presumption drawn, he pointed out that really it appears that defendant 3 had already died before the trial of the case commenced and as defendant 3 died there was no question of examining defendant 3 as witness and therefore there is no question of any adverse presumption being raised against plaintiffs case though it is admitted that relation between the plaintiff and defendant 3 were that of father and son. Sri C. B. Srinivasan further submitted that ultimately the presumption of jointness is stronger in the matter of father and the son and the family was also possessed certain old ancestral properties. The evidence of the P. W. 1 was also that it was acquired on the joint income of the parties and the plaintiffs evidence have been relied by the Courts below. There is nothing wrong on the part of the Courts below in holding that the properties in dispute was ancestral and the plaintiff was entitled to the claim of the reliefs claimed in the suit. No other contention has been raised by any side. ( 9 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned Counsels for the parties. No other contention has been raised by any side. ( 9 ) I have applied my mind to the contentions made by the learned Counsels for the parties. That as regards the question of burden of proof, I find there is much substance in the contention of the Counsel for the plaintiff-respondent. The evidence in this case has been led by the parties. The Courts below appreciated the evidence on record and recorded the findings. It is a principle of law as settled by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that when once the parties have led the evidence in support of their respective cases, the doctrine of burden of proof loses all its importance and merely it remains a question of academic interest. See Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v Gopal vinayak Gosavi and Others. In this case, their Lordships of the supreme Court has at para 10 have been pleased to lay down as under:"the two Courts below have not decided the case on the abstract question of burden of proof; nor could the suit be decided in such a way. The burden of proof is of importance only where by reason of not discharging the burden which was put upon it, a party must eventually fail. Where, however, parties have joined issue and have led evidence and the conflicting evidence can be weighed to determine which way the issue can be decided, the abstract question of burden of proof becomes academic". ( 10 ) HERE the Courts below in the present case have really considered the evidence led by the parties oral and circumstantial and thereafter on the basis of the appreciation of evidence on record, oral, documentary and circumstantial, come to the conclusion that the properties in dispute have really been joint family properties in the hands of defendant 3 and that the family was also joint. That finding having been arrived at, in my opinion, to the effect that the properties are joint ancestral properties of the parties and the said findings which are based on appreciation of evidence can only be termed as pure and simple concurrent findings of fact arrived by the two Courts. That finding having been arrived at, in my opinion, to the effect that the properties are joint ancestral properties of the parties and the said findings which are based on appreciation of evidence can only be termed as pure and simple concurrent findings of fact arrived by the two Courts. It is well settled principle of law under Section 100 of the C. P. C. that a finding of fact arrived at after consideration of the material on record howsoever erroneous it may be, the said findings of fact cannot be interfered with in second appeal, leaving apart those cases where the findings of fact has been arrived at in a manner i. e. , substantially erroneous in law, namely by ignoring the material evidence on record or where an inadmissible piece of evidence has been admitted or findings of fact has been arrived at by applying some erroneous principles of law in arriving at that. This is not a case where this court can interfere with the findings of Courts below so far as the present appeal is concerned. ( 11 ) IN this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the second appeal concluded by pure and simple findings of fact and has got no merits. The appeal has to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree of the Lower Courts below is hereby affirmed. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .