N. K. JAIN, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by the unsuccessful plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 3. 12. 1980 passed by VIIth Additional District Judge, Indore, in civil Original Suit No. 7-A/77 dismissing plaintiff's suit for declaration and possession. ( 2 ) PLAINTIFF Sardar Fatehsinghrao, who has since died during the pendency of this appeal, brought suit against his sister Smt. Jijabai, who has also since died, and her two sons Jagdish chandra and Chandra Kant, the defendants/respondents Nos. 2 and 3. for declaration and possession in respect of two house Nos. 503, m. G. Road, Indore and 17/2, Snehlata Ganj, indore. Both these houses were purchased by late Smt. Leelabai, the mother of appellant/ plaintiff and defendant/respondent No, 1 on 17. 6. 1920 and 21. 4. 1943 respectively through registered sale deeds. Late Smt. Leelabai was daughter of Maharaja Shivajirao holkar, former ruler of erst-while Indore State. She was married to Kondajirao. However, relations between them became strained and smt. Leelabai started living separately from her husband since 1912. Late Kondejirao died in march, 1928, while Leelabai expired on 27. 12. 1971. Late plaintiff Fatehsinghrao and late defendant No. 1 Smt. Jijabai were their only heirs. Both Fatehsinghrao and Jijabai have died during the pendency of this appeal. ( 3 ) LATE Smt, Leelabai had on 26. 2. 1958 executed a registered gift deed of the suit houses in favour of her daughter Jijabai, who in turn on 26. 11. 1971 and 5. 2. 1974 gifted away the two houses to her sons Jagdish chandra and Chandra Kant, the defendant nos. 2 and 3 through registered gift deeds. All these gifts were accepted duly by the respective donees. ( 4 ) THE case of the plaintiff in short before the Trial Court was that both the suit houses were H. U. F. property of himself, his father Kondajirao and mother Smt. Leelabai. It is alleged that in the year 1912 when Leelabai left the house of her husband, she took away a huge sum of Rs. 24,499. 50 from the house and it was out of this amount that the house no. 503 of M. G. Road, Indore was purchased by her. It is alleged that in the year 1912 when Leelabai left the house of her husband, she took away a huge sum of Rs. 24,499. 50 from the house and it was out of this amount that the house no. 503 of M. G. Road, Indore was purchased by her. The second house No. 17/2, Snehlata ganj, Indore, it is alleged, was purchased by leelabai from the incomes received by her from house No. 503 of M:g. Road, Indore. Both the houses were, therefore, coparcenery property of the plaintiff and his father late kondajirao and on death of Kondajirao in march, 1928. the plaintiff became sole owner of the houses being the sole surviving coparcener. The plaintiff thus, challenged validity of the gift deed dated 26. 2. 1958 which according to him was made by Leelabai without any right or interest in the suit property. According to the plaintiff, he is in possession of two rooms of house No. 17/2 Snehlata Ganj, indore. while possession of the remaining disputed property has been illegally taken by the defendants. He thus, claims reliefs of declaration and possession of the suit property as described in para No. 18 of the plaint. ( 5 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendants, who contended that the houses in question were purchased by late Smt. Leelabai out of her own incomes and with the help of her mother, who was Maharani of Indore State. The gift made by late Smt. Leelabai in favour of her daughter Jijabai and subsequent gifts by the latter in favour of her sons, the defendant nos. 2 and 3 are all valid and could not be challenged by the plaintiff. It was. further, contended that the defendants' even otherwise, have perfected their title to the suit property by adverse possession for more than 12 years preceding the filing of the suit and that the suit is barred by limitatipn. ( 6 ) THE Trial Court below after taking evidence of both the parties and on evaluation thereof concluded that the two houses were the self-acquired property of Smt. Leelabai. that plaintiff had no right or title in the property, that the gift deed dated 26. 2. 1958 executed by Leelabai in favolur of her daughter, the defendant no. 1 was valid, and that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. that plaintiff had no right or title in the property, that the gift deed dated 26. 2. 1958 executed by Leelabai in favolur of her daughter, the defendant no. 1 was valid, and that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. On these findings, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs thus, giving rise to this appeal. ( 7 ) 1 have heard Mr. S. S. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. C. Bagadia. learned Sr. Counsel with Mr. Chandrawade appearing for respondents. ( 8 ) THE main question requiring determination in this appeal is whether the two houses in dispute were purchased by late Leelabai out of her H. U. F. income or whether these were her self-acquired property. ( 9 ) ACCORDING to the plaintiff, late Smt. Leelabai, while leaving her husband's house in 1912 took away with her Rs. 24,499/ -. 50 annas and 3 paisa belonging to her husband it is out of this money, asserts the plaintiff, that Leelabai purchased the house on M. G. Road, Indore on 17. 6. 1929. There is, however, no evidence worth the name to prove the allegation. ( 10 ) THE plaintiff in his statement before the Court has pleaded total ignorance about this fact. He has, however, filed certified copy of a. complaint (Ex. P5) made by his father late kondajirao against his wife Leelabai. the then maharani of Indore State, wherein amongst others an allegation was made that Leelabai while leaving the house had taken away the aforesaid sum of money with her. This was a mere allegation made as belatedly as on 21. 1. 1927 i. e. , after about 15 years of Leelabai leaving the house of her husband. The document (Ex. P5) could not and did not constitute proof of the said allegation. ( 11 ) LATE Smt, Leelabai was a princess, daughter of the former ruler of Holkar State. There are many documents on record to show that lot of jewellery and other articles were given to her in her marriage which constituted her stridhan. She also had shares in Hukumchand mills vide Ex. P1. There is also evidence on the record that after separating from her husband, she was living with her mother, the maharani of the Holkar State. She also had shares in Hukumchand mills vide Ex. P1. There is also evidence on the record that after separating from her husband, she was living with her mother, the maharani of the Holkar State. It was not unusual for her to purchase the suit houses out of her own incomes. In addition to these houses, she had also purchased two more houses situ ated at Krishnapura and Adabazar, Indore through registered sale deeds dated 22. 5. 1915 and 20. 5. 1915 (Exs. D2-A and D8 ). She has also purchased agricultural lands around Indore through another registered sale deed dated 28. 3. 1919 (Ex. D7 ). It is pertinent to note here that the aforesaid house of Krishnapura. Indore, was subsequently gifted away by her to the plaintiff himself through a registered gift deed dated 28. 7. 1932 (Ex D-1a) This gift was accepted by the plaintiff. It is. therefore incorrect to say that Smt. Leelabai had no money of her own to purchase the suit property. The plaintiff having accepted gift of a house from her mohter is now rather estopped from challenging her title to the properties held by her. ( 12 ) PLAINTIFF after death of his father had applied in the District Court, Indore, for grant of succession certificates in respect of certain movable and immovable properties left by his late father Kondajirao. Succession Certificates (vide Ex. D-l 1 and D-12) were granted to him on 17. 3. 1930. These certificates do not include the suit houses or other properties purchased or held by Leelabai. These certificates show that the plaintiff did not then dispute the ownership of Leelabai over the suit property and the dispute has arisen only after execution of the gift deed of these houses by Leelabai in favour of defendant No. 1 Had these houses been co-parcenery property or the property of late Kondajirao, the plaintiff ought to have included them in his applications for succession certificate. ( 13 ) IT was, however, contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that there is presumption in law that the family consisting of plaintiff and his parents was a joint Hindu family and that the property held by individual members was their joint property. I am, however not persuaded by the argument. Generally speaking, the normal state of every Hindu family is joint. I am, however not persuaded by the argument. Generally speaking, the normal state of every Hindu family is joint. So, given a joint Hindu family the presumption is, until the contrary is proved, the family continues joint. However, there is no presumption that a joint family possesses joint property and so when in a suit a party claims that any particular item of the property is joint property, the burden of proving that it is so rests on the party asserting it. (See-Article 233 of Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla ). To render the property joint the plaintiff must prove that the family was possessed of some property with the income of which the property in question could have been acquired. There is no such pleadings or proving, in the instant case. What was averred by the plaintiff was only this that late Leelabai, while leaving the company of her husband took away with her a sum of money out of which the house on M. G. Road, Indore, was purchased. As already stated above, the allegation could not be proved rather it appeared to be false and vexatious. ( 14 ) LATE Leelabai at the time of purchase of the suit property was living separately from her husband since much before. I am afraid, a property acquired or held by such a female member cannot be presumed to be a co-parcenery property. ( 15 ) HIGH Court of Orissa in Manoharidevi, and subsequently in Santanu Kumar das, has held :"a female can also be a member of the joint family. But when a property is purchased in the name of a female member of the joint family and even though there is sufficient nucleus, the presumption that the said property is joint family property does not arise. Such a presumption would be available only in the case of a male member of the family, but not a female member. The party pleading that the property purchased in the name of a female member is the joint family property should witness the same adducing necessary evidence that the property so purchased was from the joint fund. " ( 16 ) IN the instant case, as already pointed out, there is not even an iota of evidence that the properties in question were purchased by late Leelabai out of the funds belonging to the joint family. " ( 16 ) IN the instant case, as already pointed out, there is not even an iota of evidence that the properties in question were purchased by late Leelabai out of the funds belonging to the joint family. On the other hand, she was living separately from her husband since 1912 and obviously had no access to the HUF property or its incomes on or about the dates when the houses in question were purchased. Both the houses were her sel^acquired property and she was competent to deal with the property in the manner she liked. The gift deed (Ex. D1)1. AIR 1983 135. 2. AIR 1985 300. executed by her in favour of defendant No. 1 jijabai was valid and effective. The plaintiff's suit has been rightly 'dismissed by the Court below and no interference is called for by this court in appeal. ( 17 ) BEFORE concluding, it may be mentioned that the plaintiff has placed on record a photocopy of an order dated 16. 12. 1900 purported to have been made by His Highness maharaja of Holkar State making certain directions regarding payment of some money to his daughters and sons-in-law. The order is in marathi, which is accompanied by its Hindi and english translations. However, the appellant has not made any application under Order 41, rule 27 Civil Procedure Code, for admitting this additional documentary evidence on record. Original certified copy is also not filed. The relevancy of this document is also not indicated. Under the circumstance, the document cannot be looked into and is irrelevant even otherwise. ( 18 ) IN the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. .