JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J. - This Regular Second Appeal has been directed against judgment and decree rendered by learned Additional District Judge, dated 2.8.1980 vide which, while accepting the appeal preferred by respondent herein, judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside. 2. Brief facts of the case reveal that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as plaintiff) staked his claim to the property in dispute on the basis that he was real brother of Kundan who, it appears, died during the pendency of first appeal. Kundan is stated to have executed a gift deed with regard to suit land measuring 24 kanals 4 marlas in favour of the respondent (hereinafter referred to a defendant). This gift was alleged to be without consideration and legal necessity. Kundan constituted a Joint Hindu Family with the plaintiff and property was a joint Hindu Property. Kundan could not have made a gift of the same and, therefore, plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the property in dispute. 3. The matter was contested by the defendant, now survived by his legal representatives. It was, inter-alia, pleaded in the written statement that there had been partition between two brothers and they had been living separately in different villages and if at all, there was, at one time Joint Hindu Family property, it could not be held to be so when Kundan gifted this land to him. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the issues that have been mentioned in judgments rendered by the courts below. The trial on the issues framed by the trial court resulted in decreeing the suit of plaintiff. Aggrieved, defendant preferred an appeal, which, as mentioned above, was allowed, thus, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 4. Mr. Ajay Mittal, Advocate assisted by Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate erred in holding, under Issue No. 1, that the status of property as Joint Hindu Family property, disrupted on partition of same by the brothers inasmuch as there was no proof of partition of the property between the brothers and in absence of the same, presumption of jointness of property had to be drawn. Akshay Bhan, Advocate erred in holding, under Issue No. 1, that the status of property as Joint Hindu Family property, disrupted on partition of same by the brothers inasmuch as there was no proof of partition of the property between the brothers and in absence of the same, presumption of jointness of property had to be drawn. It is further contended that no mutation of partition had been produced on record and that a co-sharer in possession of exclusive share could alienate that part of property and that would not indicate breaking of the status of Joint Hindu Family property. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, gone through the records of the case. I find no merit in the contentions of learned counsel for the plaintiff, as noted above. It is proved on records of the case that two brothers were residing separately in different villages. The plaintiff himself admitted that Sadhu Ram son of Basakha Ram resided in village Phulpur. Further, the plaintiff had disposed of his house to one Mam Chand claiming himself to be exclusive owner of the property. Both the brothers were recorded to be in separate possession of the property falling to their shares in the revenues record. Further, Kundan created a mortgage of his share of property as would be borne out from the excerpt Ex. PW3/1 and which has been reflected in the Jamabandi for the year 1932-33. Again, part of property in dispute was mortgaged by Kundan. The facts, as fully detailed above, would not only show that the two brothers were residing in different villages and had separate cultivation, but also that they had been dealing with the property on different occasions as exclusively belonging to them. This, in view of the appellate Court, proved separation of brothers and partition of the property between two brothers. No exception at all can be had to the aforesaid findings recorded by the appellate Court. Finding no merit in this appeal, I dismiss the same leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs. Appeal dismissed.