( 1 ) THIS appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25-9-1996, passed in Civil suit no. 8-A/1994 by the First Additional Judge to the Court of Distt. Judge, Bilaspur (C. G. ). By the aforesaid judgment and decree, the plaintiffs suit for partition and separate possession has been decreed by the trial court. ( 2 ) THE brief facts are that the plaintiffs, who are the successors of one Nohar Sai, filed a suit for partition and separate possession in relation to the suit house situated in village Champa, the then Distt. Bilaspur (C. G. ). The plaint allegations are that Nohar Sai, Sodhu Ram and Dwarpal were the real brothers. The suit house was a joint family property. Nohar Sai was having 1/3 rd share in the suit house. In the year 1968, in lieu of recovery of a loan taken by Sodhu Ram from Kosa Bunkar Sahkari samiti, Champa, this property was attached and was put to auction. On this action, nohar Sai filed a suit for declaration that the property was of joint title and possession, which cannot be put to auction for recovery of loan taken by one of the owners and for other reliefs against the said Co-operative society, the Sales Officer and the present two defendants vide Civil suit No. 1-A/1969. This suit was decreed on 12-3-1976 and it was held that the suit house was a joint family property and Nohar Sai was having 1/3rd share in it and the same was not liable to be attached and auctioned in lieu of the loan taken by the defendant sodhu Ram. The plaintiffs claimed their share to the extent of 1/3rd in the suit property. Defendant No. 1, Sodhu Ram denied the contentions of the plaintiffs. It was pleaded by him that there was a partition in the family prior to the year 1993 and the suit house, which was mortgaged with some other persons at the time of partition was given in the share of the defendant. About the said civil Suit No. 1-A/1969, he pleaded that this civil suit was filed for protecting the family property and to witness this fact, Nohar Sai executed many documents in which he admitted as to why the said civil suit was filed. About the said civil Suit No. 1-A/1969, he pleaded that this civil suit was filed for protecting the family property and to witness this fact, Nohar Sai executed many documents in which he admitted as to why the said civil suit was filed. He pleaded that in Documents dated 19-6-1981, 16-3-1954 and 13-1-1977, there are admissions of Nohar Sai to this effect that the suit house was the property of exclusive ownership and possession of this defendant and the plaintiffs are estopped from challenging his title. Defendant No. 2 Dwarpal admitted the claims of the plaintiffs. ( 3 ) LEARNED trial Court framed various issues in this case and after recording the evidence of parties decreed the suit for partition holding the plaintiffs to be the joint owners of the suit house to the extent of 1/3rd share in it. It is against this judgment and decree, defendant No. 1 has filed this appeal. ( 4 ) LEARNED senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argued that the trial court erred in law in holding that there was no such partition in the family in which the suit house was allotted to the share of present appellant. He further argued that the trial Court failed to consider that on the basis of admissions contained in documents ex. D-1 and D-2, it was established on record that in the earlier partition in the family, this suit house was allotted to the share of this appellant and the earlier civil suit No. 1 -A/1969 was filed for protecting the property of the appellant and in view of these facts, the suit for partition was liable to be dismissed. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents argued that defendant No. 1 has pleaded a partition in family and the burden of providing factum of partition was on this defendant. The factum of partition has not been proved. He also argued that the contents of the documents Ex. D. 1 and d. 2 have also not been proved by defendant no. l. Further, the earlier judgment and decree and the findings recorded therein were binding on the parties which cannot be nullified by an unregistered and unproved document like Ex. D. 1, filed by the defendant. ( 6 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Court below. l. Further, the earlier judgment and decree and the findings recorded therein were binding on the parties which cannot be nullified by an unregistered and unproved document like Ex. D. 1, filed by the defendant. ( 6 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Court below. ( 7 ) IT is an admitted position in this case that initially the suit house was a joint family property among the three brothers namely Nohar Sai (the ancestor of the plaintiffs), Sodhu ram and Dwarpal (the present defendants ). Against a claim for partition to the extent of 1/3rd share in the said joint house, the contesting defendant, appellant herein, had taken a plea that there was a partition in the family much prior to the year 1993 and in the said partition, the suit house was allotted to his share. Therefore, the burden of proof regarding factum of partition was on the defendant No. l who pleaded the same. ( 8 ) SECTION 101 of the Indian Evidence act 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the Act)provides that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the bur-den of proof lies on that person. Section 102 provides upon whom burden of proof lies. It has been provided that the burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail; if no evidence at all were given on either side. Section 103 of the Act provides that the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person, and lastly Section 104 of the Act further provides that the burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence. ( 9 ) IT has been held by the Apex Court in the matter of A. Raghavamma and another v. Chenchamma and another, AIR 1964 SC 136 that there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof burden of proof lies upon the person who has to prove a fact and it never shifts, but the onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. ( 10 ) IT has further been held in the matter of r. V. E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V. P. Temple and another (2003) 8 SCC 752 : (AIR 2003 sc 4548) that whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil for testing of "proved", "disproved" and "not proved", as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. It is the evaluation of the result drawn by the applicability of the rule, which makes the difference. In a suit for possession based on title once the plaintiff has been able to create a "high degree of probability" so as to shift the onus on the defendant it is for the defendant to discharge his onus and in the absence thereof the burden of proof lying on the plaintiff shall be held to have been discharged so as to amount to proof of the plaintiffs title. ( 11 ) RELYING on these provisions and principles, referred to above, if we examine the records of the present case, it would appear that the defendant who pleaded a partition in the family, could not prove the factum of partition which, in law, was required to be proved by him. The defendant has only examined himself as a witness in this case and has given one line statement in para-1 that (vernacular matter omitted ). Except this evidence he has not brought on record any other evidence to prove partition as is pleaded by him. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the contents of the Document D-l and D-2 would show that there was a family partition and this property was allotted to the share of the appellant in the said partition. The arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is that the contents of the Document D-l and D-2 would show that there was a family partition and this property was allotted to the share of the appellant in the said partition. He also argued that as per the statement of p. W. 1 Raj Kumar (Para 9), since he has admitted that these documents bear the signatures of his father namely Nohar Sai, the contents of the documents shall be held to be proved which shall determine that there was a partition and this house was allotted to the defendant. This argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is totally misconceived. Firstly, it has to be seen as to whether these documents have been proved or not? Where the contents of documents are fact in issue, mere proof of signature on a document or mere marking exhibit over the document by the person producing does not lead them admissible in evidence. Here the defendant has filed these documents, which are hand written, with the assertion that they were signed by the father of the plaintiffs Nohar Sai. None of the witnesses to the document have been examined as according to defendant No. l, they have died. About the signature of Nohar sai on these documents, a question in the cross-examination of P. W. 1 (para 9) has been put to him, who stated that the signaiures over the documents appear to be that of his father. Only this casual admission about the signature of a dead person over the document does not dispense with the party required to legally prove the contents of the documents. Such documents, particularly the contents thereof, cannot be held to be proved by mere production or admission about the signature of the executant. ( 12 ) IN the above facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that by merely admitting signature of the executant on the document ex. D. 1 and D. 2, the defendant has been able to create a high degree of probability about the partition and ownership so as to shift the onus on the other side to prove that there was no partition in the family or that the father has not executed any such document. D. 1 and D. 2, the defendant has been able to create a high degree of probability about the partition and ownership so as to shift the onus on the other side to prove that there was no partition in the family or that the father has not executed any such document. The trial Court has rightly held that these documents have not been proved and the contents thereof cannot be read for holding that there was a partition in the family. It has further held that these documents will not operate as estoppel against the plaintiffs and in fact the defendant has been failed to prove partition in this case. ( 13 ) IT is also admitted in this case that there was a previous civil suit in which the suit house was declared to be the house of joint ownership and possession among the three brothers namely Nohar Sai and the present defendants. An appeal against the said decree was also dismissed and the said judgment and decree, so far as it relates to the nature of property, was final and binding over the parties. The defendant who had taken a plea that the said judgment and decree was obtained for protecting the suit property by the joint efforts of the three brothers has not been substantiated by him by proving the same. These were also the contents of the document Ex. D-1 which is a document dated 19-6-1981 and the same have not been proved by the defendant. ( 14 ) IN this manner, the defendant could not establish before the trial Court that there was a partition in the family and the said house was received by him in the said partition. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiffs had proved their title to the extent of 1/3rd share in the suit property and they were entitled for a decree of partition. There is no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. ( 15 ) THERE is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The judgment and decree, passed by the trial Court are confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. --- *** ---