JUDGMENT The plaintiff/appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by learned IX Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Indore, in C.O.S. No. 96A/88 by which his suit has been dismissed. 2(a). Plaintiff's case, in brief, is that plaintiff and the defendant are brothers and members of the joint Hindu family and the defendant being the elder was and is the 'Karta' of the joint family. After the death of Sanwariya, the father of the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant being the elder member became the head of the family and he took over the management of the family property. Defendant along with plaintiff was running a firm Shri Bajarang Timber Trading in the partnership of one Indra Mohan and Badri. After the death of the father of the parties, about fifteen years back, the above business was closed and from the loan obtained by mortgage of house No. 55, situated at Juna Risala, which was joint family property, with Chhabra and Company, Labhariya Bheru, Indore, Gajanand Timber Trading and Bhavani Saw Mill which is situated at Jawahar Marg Street No.1, Siyaganj, Indore, were established. In the interest of joint Hindu family, Plaintiff also contributed in running the business. 2(b). Both the aforesaid firms Gajanand Timber Trading Company and Bhavani Saw Mills are joint Hindu family firms and their business is being run presently by the defendant for the benefit of the joint Hindu family. Defendant purchased House No. 27 and 6 situated at Ahilya Paltan, Indore, out of the income of the aforesaid firms. Besides these houses, defendant also purchased about fifteen tolas gold and twenty five Kg. Silver ornaments. Besides these ornaments, about five tolas gold and ten Kg. Silver ornaments of the plaintiff's wife are also in possession of the defendant. About two years back, when defendant started disposing of the aforementioned property, plaintiff objected to it on which defendant stopped providing him diet money even. Plaintiff repeatedly asked to furnish him accounts and also requested for partition, but plaintiff did not pay any heed. Hence plaintiff filed this suit for accounts and partition of the suit property. Defendant opposed the suit and in his written statement has denied the plaintiff's allegations. Defendant's case, in brief, is that his father resided separately since the childhood of the defendant. Defendant used to earn his livelihood himself working as labour on daily wages. Hence plaintiff filed this suit for accounts and partition of the suit property. Defendant opposed the suit and in his written statement has denied the plaintiff's allegations. Defendant's case, in brief, is that his father resided separately since the childhood of the defendant. Defendant used to earn his livelihood himself working as labour on daily wages. The father of the defendant did not possess any movable property. The averments of the plaintiff are false in this regard. Defendant entered into partnership with Indra Mohan in a trade of timber wood. He purchased House No. 6 at Ahilya Paltan, Indore in Rs. 2,700/-from his own income. The rest of the movable property is defendant's self acquired property purchased from his own income, but on the request of the plaintiff two rooms of House No. 55, Juna Risala were got registered in the name of wife of the plaintiff. Defendant maintained plaintiff from his childhood and he beared all expenses on him and his family till the plaintiff got six issues, but plaintiff used to quarrel with defendant and ultimately plaintiff got half of the above house registered in his name. The entire suit property is the self earned property of the defendant. Plaintiff has presented the suit on the false and fictitious grounds. He is not entitled to get any relief. The suit deserves to be dismissed with costs. The question for determination in this appeal is whether the trial Court has committed any error in dismissing the suit of plaintiff/appellant? Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned trial Court has erred in placing the burden to prove the issues on the appellant. His contention cannot be accepted. The plaintiff has averred that the suit property belongs to joint Hindu family of plaintiff and defendant. He has also pleaded in the plaint that houses situated at Ahilya Paltan, Indore and the gold and silver ornaments were purchased from the income of Gajanand Timber Trading and Bhavani Saw Mills, therefore, the plaintiff has to prove the fact pleaded by him that the suit properties were purchased from the income of joint Hindu family business. Therefore, learned lower Court has not committed any error in placing the burden on plaintiff. It appears from the plain reading of the plaint that the plaintiff has himself presumed that the business run by the defendant is joint family business. Therefore, learned lower Court has not committed any error in placing the burden on plaintiff. It appears from the plain reading of the plaint that the plaintiff has himself presumed that the business run by the defendant is joint family business. Plaintiff has not sought the relief of declaration that the suit properties are joint family properties. Unless this fact is not established, plaintiff cannot have any case for partition or other relief as there cannot be any presumption that a certain property or business is joint family property or joint family business. The Apex Court in G. Narayana Raju Vs. G. Chamaraju and Others, has held that:- It is well established that there is no presumption under Hindu Law that business standing in the name of member of the joint family is a joint family business even if that member is the manager of the joint family. Unless it could be shown that the businesses in the hands of the coparcener grew up with the assistance of the joint family property or joint family funds or that the earnings of the business were blended with the joint family estate, the business remains free and separate. The plaintiff has not adduced any reliable evidence to prove the fact that the business run by the defendant was started from joint family funds. It cannot be disputed that there is a presumption of jointness regarding members of the family, but there is no such presumption of joint property of joint family. Therefore, the plaintiff would have to prove the existence of joint family business and also that the disputed properties were purchased from the income of such business. Therefore, learned lower Court has not committed any error in placing the burden of proof on the plaintiff. Learned lower Court, after appreciating the evidence adduced, has found that plaintiff could not prove the issues. We are in agreement with the reasonings and findings of the lower Court. Plaintiff has not produced any such document which could show that the business carried by the defendant was his joint family business. Plaintiff could not establish the fact that he also has contributed in the business carried by the defendant. We are in agreement with the reasonings and findings of the lower Court. Plaintiff has not produced any such document which could show that the business carried by the defendant was his joint family business. Plaintiff could not establish the fact that he also has contributed in the business carried by the defendant. After going through the entire evidence, we are of the considered opinion that plaintiff has miserably failed in proving that the joint Hindu family had such other land or had such income which could provide nucleus for purchasing the disputed properties. Nucleus not proved to be in possession of the joint family properties purchased in the name of defendant cannot be presumed to be joint properties. Learned lower Court has not committed any error in dismissing the suit. The findings of it are well reasoned and deserve no interference and we find no merit in this appeal. Consequently, this appeal is hereby dismissed as devoid of any substance. Decree passed by the lower Court is hereby confirmed. Final Result : Dismissed