Judgment :- This Second Appeal was admitted on 12.10.1999 on the following substantial questions of law :- “(i) Whether the suit plot purchased in the name plaintiff's father could be treated as joint family property when the simultaneous purchase of another plot in the name of Daulatrao has not been treated as property of the joint family? (ii) Whether the Court below ignored that plaintiff's father had separate income with the help of which he would purchase the property and whether existence of sufficient nucleus is established from the facts found by the Court below?” 2. I have heard at length the submissions at the Bar with reference to substantial questions mentioned above. 3. Genealogical order or family tree is given herein-below in order to understand the controversy in an easy way: Krishnaji Bhavji Annaji Daulatrao | | Rambhau Santosh (Defdt,/Resp.) (Plff/Appellant) 4. The plaintiff-Santosh has instituted suit for ejectment of Rambhau (original defendant) and to recover possession of suit property i.e. hut shown in plaint map by letters “KBMLK” and to restrain defendants from demolishing the hut and make any construction of new house. According to the plaintiff, his father Annaji Deshmukh was in service as a teacher at Wardha and he had purchased Plot No. 15 out of Field S.No. 30/1K, 13/31/7 at Circle Nob admeasuring 30 x 60' =1800 sq.ft. at Subhashwadi Wardha, under sale deed dated 11.8.1952. After the death of plaintiff's father the plot was mutated in the name of plaintiff's mother Anjanabai and after her death, it was mutated in the name of the plaintiff in the municipal records. 5. The defendant who is cousin brother of the plaintiff, desired that his son would take education at Wardha; but had no any accommodation. Therefore hut near the house, was allowed to be used by the defendant's son at Wardha, temporarily to reside for educational purpose. But despite completion of education and despite notice, the defendant did not vacate the hut. Instead defendant started claiming that the hut belongs to him and intended to demolish it and start a new construction in its place. 6. The defendant who resisted the suit claimed that plaintiff's father purchased the plot from earnings of the joint Hindu family property and that defendant is also sharer of the suit plot and refused to vacate the suit hut. 7. 6. The defendant who resisted the suit claimed that plaintiff's father purchased the plot from earnings of the joint Hindu family property and that defendant is also sharer of the suit plot and refused to vacate the suit hut. 7. The trial Court by its judgment and order dated 30.11.1995 held that the suit plot is joint family property of Bhavji, Annaji and Daulatrao and disbelieved the case of the plaintiff that defendant was licensee of the hut since 1998 and proceeded to dismiss the suit. 8. The first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiff confirming the dismissal of the suit. 9. The first Appellate Court considered the contentions advanced at the Bar by respective counsel. The plaintiff's father was serving as a teacher, but no evidence was adduced to show that he had sufficient funds to purchase the suit plot. No sale deed was produced in respect of the suit plot although it is stated that the suit plot was purchased in 1952. Partition deed in respect of a partition in joint Hindu family did not mention that the suit plot was purchased by father of the plaintiff by means of his independent self income. There is evidence that although some agricultural lands at village Hiwara were purchased in the name of the father of the plaintiff, the lands were subject-matter of partition deed (Exh.34) in the year 1969. The onus was upon plaintiff to establish that his father was having sufficient self income to purchase the suit plot, but no satisfactory and sufficient evidence was led by the plaintiff that suit plot is self-acquired property of his father. On behalf of the respondent, reference is made to the ruling in Appasaheb Peerappa vs. Devendra Peerappa: (2007) 1 SCC 521 . The Hon'ble Apex Court referred to presumption as to joint family property and onus of individual member who asserts self-acquisition to establish that the property was acquired by him without the aid of the nucleus. On behalf of the respondent, reference is made to the ruling in Appasaheb Peerappa vs. Devendra Peerappa: (2007) 1 SCC 521 . The Hon'ble Apex Court referred to presumption as to joint family property and onus of individual member who asserts self-acquisition to establish that the property was acquired by him without the aid of the nucleus. Making reference to earlier rulings, the Apex Court in para no.17 concluded thus : “17.......................what emerges is that there is no presumption of a joint Hindu family but on the evidence if it is established that the property was joint Hindu family property and the other properties were acquired out that nucleus, if the initial burden is discharged by the person who claims joint Hindu family, then 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 by cogent and necessary evidence.” 10. In view of this legal position and concurrent findings recorded by the Courts below about failure of the plaintiff to prove that the suit plot was self-acquired property purchased by his father independently and without the aid of nucleus from the joint Hindu family, no fault can be found with impugned judgment and order in the facts and circumstances of the case. The substantial questions of law stated, must be answered as below : That the suit plot was joint Hindu family property irrespective of any other property not treated as joint property. No fault can be found with Courts below to hold that plaintiff's father had no sufficient self income to purchase suit plot and nucleus of joint property was used to purchase the same. Both the Courts below based their conclusions upon evidence led before the trial Court. It is well-settled by now that the appeal against concurrent judgments sans merit deserves dismissal. As such, the Appeal is dismissed.