JUDGMENT:- Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. At the hearing of this appeal, my attention has been invited to specific case pleaded by the Original defendant that he had shared and participated in purchasing various properties and that all the properties including the house in dispute are the joint family property and thus, it is contended that the plaintiff is not exclusive owner of the property in dispute. Despite specific contention and case or the defendant, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that, the learned trial Judge, in para 17, while disposing or Special Civil Suit No.43 of 2003, made observations as follows: "However, said contention of the defendant clearly appears to be after-thought, because pleading and evidence of the defendant does not disclose that he has paid Rs.l ,00,000/to the plaintiff." 3. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, this was quite contrary to the contentions pleaded in para 9 of the Written Statement. Furthermore, the first Appellate Court also in the impugned judgment, in para 12 recorded its finding that the appellant in his Written Statement has not stated a single word about payment of this cash to his father. In substance, it appears that it was a specific case of the defendant that he had shared and participated in purchasing various properties including the suit house. Therefore, according to him, it is a joint family property. 4. It is also submitted with reference to various Supreme Court rulings that if the property was raised and acquired by Joint efforts of father and sons, then it would be joint family property. Of course, initial burden is on the party pleading to establish that it is a joint Hindu property and after initial discharge of burden, the onus shifts upon other party to show that the property in question was acquired independently or in other words, is a self acquired property. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, specific finding is required to be invited from the trial Court and the first Appellate Court as to whether the suit property is the Hindu joint family property acquired by the Joint efforts made by father and sons etc. or whether it is self acquired property of father acquired independently by him. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, specific finding is required to be invited from the trial Court and the first Appellate Court as to whether the suit property is the Hindu joint family property acquired by the Joint efforts made by father and sons etc. or whether it is self acquired property of father acquired independently by him. This issue is required to be referred back to the trial Court for recording its findings after giving an opportunity to the parties to lead any further evidence if they so desire. The finding on the said issue be recorded by the trial Court and forwarded to this Court through the District Court, duly certified as required under Rule 470 of Chapter XII of the Civil Manual for Guidance of Civil Courts and Officers sub-ordinate to it. 5. The record and proceedings of the Courts below be sent back to the trial Court to enable it to hear the parties, which shall record finding on the issue referred to it to be forwarded to this Court through the District Judge, Akola within a period of three months from the date of communication of the writ. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 16.8.2010. This appeal be listed for final hearing after receipt of findings from the Courts below. Ordered accordingly.