JUDGMENT M. PAPANNA, J. — Invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Narayan Nayak has brought the aforesaid writ petitions seeking quashment of orders vide Annexures-4,5 and 6 passed by the Consolidation Officer, Nimapara (opposite party No.4), Deputy Director, Consolidation, Range-I, Bhubaneswar (opposite party No.3) and Commissioner of Consolidation, Bhuba¬neswar (opposite party No.2), respectively, rejecting his claim for recording the disputed land in his favour basing on Regis¬tered Sale Deeds No.1540 dated 10.3.1967 and 1931 dated 9.5.1970 by virtue of which he had purchased the said land from recorded owners. Since all the writ petitions involve similar questions of fact and law, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For purpose of adjudication of these writ petitions together, relevant facts of the case are briefly set forth as below : One late Ratan Nayak had four sons, namely, Bhikari, Girid¬hari, Daitari and Birabhadra, of whom Bhikari died in 1952 prior to which his only son Chintamani passed away in 1951 for which Gelly being his only daughter succeeded to his property, particu¬larly when his only son Chintamani left no issue while breathing his last; while Giridhari expired leaving behind him, his three sons, Narendra, Gajendra and Surendra of whom Narendra died leaving behind his son Purna Chandra (opposite party No.5); Gajendra died leaving behind him, his son Uma Charan (opposite party No.6) and Surendra died issueless whereas Daitari died leaving behind him, his two sons, Dinabandhu and Bauribandhu of whom the former died leaving behind his adopted son Gangadhar (opposite party No.7) and latter died leaving behind his widow Kuntala (opposite party No.8) and Birabhadra died long back in or about 1980 leaving behind him, his two sons, namely, Subala (opposite party No.10) and Narayan, present petitioner, who has brought all the writ petitions above mentioned. 3. Petitioner’s assertions show that the disputed land under Annexure-1 as claimed to be Bhikari’s self acquired proper¬ty being purchased in 1910, 1911 and also 1935 was recorded separately in Bhikari’s name during 1927-28 survey and settlement operation prior to which joint family properties of Bhikari and his brothers were partitioned among them by metes and bounds and were recorded separately in their names during the settlement operation. It is also asserted by the petitioner that the record of rights in respect of their respective shares were published in 1935 even after which Bhikari had purchased some properties through sale deed vide Annexure-2 in his name and possessed the same exclusively. When Orissa Estates Abolition Act came into being in 1959-60, their intermediary estate was vested in the State Government for which Birabhadra Nayak and others filed claim cases under Sections 6 and 7 of the Orissa Estates Aboli¬tion Act in respect of the entire landed properties including the disputed land to the extent of Ac.10.18 decimals which was not vested in the State Government after the Orissa Estates Abolition Act came into existence, the same being sthitiban land of Bhi¬kari. Out of the entire landed properties of Bhikari, land to the extent of only Ac.0.99 decimals being the intermediary interest was vested in the State Government consequent upon operation of the Orissa Estates Abolition Act. Gally, the only legal heir of Bhikari filed objections in all the claim cases brought by the opposite parties but her objections were rejected by the Estates Abolition Collector who arbitrarily divided the disputed proper¬ties into three shares and settled the same in favour of three brothers of Bhikari in O.E.A. Case No.47/59-60 vide Annexure-3. The petitioner’s further case is that Gally who succeeded to her father’s property, transferred 12 annas interest out of each plot to the petitioner through registered sale deed No.1931 dated 9.5.1979 even prior to which by virtue of common registered sale deed No.1540 dated 10.3.1967 4 annas interest out of each plot belonging to Gally was purchased by the petitioner as well as the ancestors of opposite parties, who possessed the same after amicably dividing it in equal shares. It is further asserted by the petitioner that though for cultivation he developed the disputed land and brought about improvement to the same by in¬vesting huge amount of money, the Consolidation authorities wrongly prepared the land registers jointly in favour of the petitioner and ancestors of opposite parties and published the same challenging which Objection Cases No.3319/81, 3220/81, 2231/81 and 3322/81 were filed by the petitioner before opposite party No.4 who, in turn, rejected all the objection cases with a finding that Gally, vendor of the disputed land, has no right, title and interest over the said properties. Being aggrieved by this order vide Annexure-4, Appeal Cases No.25/84 to 46/84 were preferred before the learned Deputy Director, Consolidation (opposite party No.3) who, in turn, upheld the order appealed against by his order vide Annxure-5 which was challenged by the present petitioner in Consolidation Revision Cases No.574/85 to 598/85 before the Commissioner, Consolidation (opposite party No.2), who ultimately dismissed all the revision cases by his order vide Annexure-6 for which the petitioner has been obliged to bring these writ petitions before this Court seeking quashment of the impugned orders vide Annexures 4,5 and 6 passed by the opposite parties 4,3 and 2 respectively, and also to restrain the opposite parties from acting in pursuance of the impugned orders. 4. None of the opposite parties filed counter affidavit to the writ petitions brought by present petitioner before this Court but, however, the fact that the disputed land is self acquired property of Bhikari has been denied by the opposite parties, who in turn claimed the said land to be their joint family property which was of course recorded in the name of Bhikari because of being Karta of their family. 5. Shri Budhadev Routray, appearing for the petitioner urged that the Consolidation authorities have gone wrong and committed serious illegality in holding the disputed land to be joint family property of the concerned parties. His contention is that the fact that the land in question is self acquired property has been well established without there being any ambiguity in support of which petitioner besides adducing oral evidence filed record of rights of 1927-28 settlement recorded in the name of Bhikari. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the burden lies on the petitioner to prove that the disputed property is self acquired property of Bhikari. The orders of the Consolidation authorities impugned in these writ petitions have been supported by him being quite justified. 7. Therefore, in the light of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we are called upon to adjudicate whether or not the property in question is self ac¬quired property or joint family property. 8. Joint family property and self acquired property are the concepts of Hindu Law. Thus there is a need to examine the Law on this aspect of the case. Principle of law is also well settled by now on the point. 8. Joint family property and self acquired property are the concepts of Hindu Law. Thus there is a need to examine the Law on this aspect of the case. Principle of law is also well settled by now on the point. The oft quoted decision is rendered in the case of Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and others reported in A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 379. In the reported case, the following view is taken :- “Proof of the existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property was joint to establish the fact. But where it is established that the family possessed some joint property which from its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the property in question may have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property.” 9. Disputed property claimed by petitioner as self ac¬quired property of Bhikari on the one hand and claimed by opp.parties as joint family property on the other was purchased in 1910, 1911 and 1935 by virtue of sale deeds. It was recorded in Bhikari’s name separately during 1927-28 survey and settlement operation. This fact has not been disputed by the opposite par¬ties. Petitioner adduced evidence in Objection cases by examining himself as a witness in support of his case which finds ample corroboration in the evidence of attesting witness Ananda Biswal. On the other hand, opp.parties 5 to 10 examined four witnesses in support of their claim that the land in question is their joint family property. But they have failed to prove existence of joint family at the relevant time. Evidence adduced on behalf of opp.parties 5 to 10 does not prove that their family possessed some joint properties which formed nucleus from which property in question has been acquired. At the same time statement of father of opp.party No.5, Narendra Naik who was a party to the objection cases cannot be lost sight of particularly when he has categori¬cally admitted in his evidence that the disputed property is self acquired property of Bhikari. At the same time statement of father of opp.party No.5, Narendra Naik who was a party to the objection cases cannot be lost sight of particularly when he has categori¬cally admitted in his evidence that the disputed property is self acquired property of Bhikari. From the facts proved as well as admitted by the parties as indicated above, the fact that Bhikari acquired the property in question without aid of joint family properties has been fully established. 10. Therefore, so far as self acquired property is con¬cerned we are convinced that at the material time Bhikari had acquired the property in dispute without aid of the joint family property. This conclusion has become irresistible particularly in absence of proof of existence of joint family and more so in absence of proof of possession of the said property jointly by the family. 11. In this regard, we would like to refer to a Privy Council decision reported in AIR (34) 1947 (P.C.) 189 (Appalaswa¬mi-v.-Suryanarayan Murty and others wherein concept of jointness or self acquisition of property has been explained. What should be the burden of proof, if property held either jointly or sepa¬rately by any member of the family has also been explained there¬in. Even if there is proof to show that a family is joint, it does not lead the Court to arrive at a conclusion abruptly that the property held by any member of the said family is also joint. What the Privy Council says is that burden lies on the person who asserts that any item of property is joint, to prove the said fact. However, once it is proved that the family possessed some joint property which from its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the property claimed to be joint may have been acquired. In such a case, the burden shifts imme¬diately and automatically to the parties alleging self-acquisitions to prove affirmatively that the property is acquired without aid of joint family property. This view taken by the Privy Council was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Srinivas Krishna Rao Kango vrs. Narayan Devji Kanjo and others (supra). 12. Orders of Consolidation authorities (Annexures 4,5 and 6) are examined carefully. This view taken by the Privy Council was followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Srinivas Krishna Rao Kango vrs. Narayan Devji Kanjo and others (supra). 12. Orders of Consolidation authorities (Annexures 4,5 and 6) are examined carefully. While determining joint family proper¬ty of Bhikari and his brothers as well as acquisition of property by him in his name separately, they have not applied the afore¬said settled principle of law for which the findings arrived at by each of them have gone wrong. The approach adopted by them in adjudicating the ticklish questions, as aforesaid, being errone¬ous led them to erroneous findings. We are not in full agreement with the consolidation authorities in respect of the said find¬ings in view of the Apex Court decision rendered in Srinivas Krishna Rao Kango vrs. Narayan Devji Kango and others (supra). Observation of their Lordships of the Supreme Court is quoted below for guidance : “While it is not unusual for a family to hold properties for generations without a title deed, an acquisition by a member would ordinarily be evidenced by a deed. When, therefore, a property is found to have been in the possession of a family from time immemorial, it is not unreasonable to presume that it is ances¬tral and to throw the burden on the party pleading self acquisi¬tion to establish it.” 13. In the present case, it is asserted by the opposite parties that Bhikari being Karta of the family was in an advanta¬geous position to get the land in question recorded in his name separately during 1927-28 Survey and Settlement operation. This contention raised on behalf of opposite parties has no legal force particularly when after purchasing the said property in his name Bhikari was possessing the same separately and exclusively from other members of the family in support of which both oral and documentary evidence is available on record. Moreover, in absence of evidence to the effect that the family had possessed joint property which from its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus, we are not in a position to presume that the property purchased in the name of Bhikari through registered sale deeds and held by him separately is the joint family property. Moreover, in absence of evidence to the effect that the family had possessed joint property which from its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus, we are not in a position to presume that the property purchased in the name of Bhikari through registered sale deeds and held by him separately is the joint family property. In this regard, their Lordships of the Supreme Court are of the view that self acquired property of a member of a joint Hindu family will never become joint family property if that member does not maintain separate account from income accrued from that property, even if all the members of the joint family enjoyed the usufructs thereof. For that purpose it must be shown that the owner of such property has waived or surrendered his special rights in that property by his own volition and intention. In this regard, re¬liance can be placed on the decision of this Court reported in 1991 (II) O.L.R. 121 (Brajabandhu Sahu and others vrs. Krupasind¬hu Sahu and others). 14. In the case of China Sahuani and after her Kishroe Ch. Sahu and another Vrs. Rukuna Sahu and another, 1988 (I) O.L.R. 309, this Court has taken the similar view which we need not quote once again as decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Srinivas Krishna Rao Kango vrs. Narayan Devji Kango and others (A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 379) has been relied upon by this Court in the reported case. In 1995 (I) O.L.R. 606 (Purnabasi Versus, Rajku¬mar) this Court has taken the view on joint family property as well as self acquired property. This Court has referred to A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 1279 (M.N. Aryamurty vrs. M.L. Subbaraya) in the case of Purnabasi vrs. Raj Kumar (supra). It has been held therein that if there has been severance of joint family and subsequently one item of property is acquired in the name of particular person of the family, even though without joint fund, it would be the self acquired property. M.L. Subbaraya) in the case of Purnabasi vrs. Raj Kumar (supra). It has been held therein that if there has been severance of joint family and subsequently one item of property is acquired in the name of particular person of the family, even though without joint fund, it would be the self acquired property. The Apex Court has made it clear that if one of the members remained in possession of the entire proper¬ties of the family even after severance of status there is no presumption that the property which is acquired by him after severance of status must be regarded as acquired for the family where rents and profits are received by the member in possession and he would be liable to account for the same. But the funds in the hands of that member do not become impressed with any trust in favour of other members. Therefore, if such a member acquired such property with the funds in his possession, the other members would claim no share in that property. 15. In the case at hand, the opposite parties could not establish that there was sufficient nucleus from which the prop¬erty in question might have been acquired. As such the property in question acquired in the name of Bhikari through registered sale deeds and subsequently recorded in his name during Survey and Settlement Operation, 1927-28, cannot be held to be joint family property. The above being the established position of law which the Consolidation authorities have lost sight of while passing the impugned orders, we do not see eye to eye with them in re¬spect of their findings that the land in question is the joint family property. 16. In the result, orders impugned in these writ petitions are liable to be and are hereby quashed. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. CH. P. K. MISRA, J. I agree. Petitions allowed.