JUDGMENT : V. NATH, J.:–The defendant no.2 in the suit has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.1978 passed by Sub Judge II, Sitamarhi in Partition Suit No. 05/1969/80/1975 granting the decree in part to the plaintiffs for partition for the suit properties except the properties in the name of defendant no. 3 Ram Kali Devi. The suit has been filed by the plaintiff-respondents for partition of their share in the suit properties mentioned in Schedules I & II of the plaint. 2. Bhagwat Lal had two sons Singheshwar Prasad Verma and Rameshwar Prasad Verma. The two sons of Singheshwar Prasad Verma namely Grish Nandan Prasad Verma and Ratneshwari Nandan Prasad Verma are plaintiff nos. 1 and 2 in the suit and Most Tara Devi widow of Late Singheshwar Prasad Verma is plaintiff no.3 in the suit. Rameshwar Prasad Verma another son of Bhagwat Lal has been impleaded as defendant no.1 and Laliteshwar Prasad Verma son of Rameshwar Prasad Verma is defendant no.2 and Ramkali Devi wife of Rameshwar Prasad Verma is defendant no.3 in the suit. 3. It is pertinent to mention that after the death of defendant no.1 Rameshwar Prasad Verma and defendant no.3 Ramkali Devi their three daughters namely Bina Verma, Smt Chitra Devi and Smt Gaytri Devi have been brought on record as their heirs and impleaded as defendant no.3, 3(a) and 3(b) respectively. 4. The plaintiff’s case is that after the death of common ancestor Bhagwat Lal, his elder son Shingheshwar Prasad Verma became the Karta of joint family and he, out of his own earning as well as surplus income of the joint family, made new acquisitions of properties in his name and in the name of his brother (defendant no.1) and also started a press Known as Sarsawati Press at Mohalla-Kadamkuan, Patna. After the death of Singheshwar Prasad Verma his brother Rameshwar Prasad Verma became Karta of the joint family and he also out of the surplus income of the family made new acquisitions on behalf of the joint family. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the properties described in the Schedules of the plaint are joint family properties in which the plaintiffs are entitled to half share and the defendants are also entitled to equal half share. The defendants appeared and filed their written statements. 5. The defendant nos. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the properties described in the Schedules of the plaint are joint family properties in which the plaintiffs are entitled to half share and the defendants are also entitled to equal half share. The defendants appeared and filed their written statements. 5. The defendant nos. 1,2 and 3 filed their separate written statements and defendant nos. 3, 3(a) and 3(b) jointly filed their separate written statement contesting the claim of the plaintiffs. The case of these defendants in substance is that there had already been partition between the two brothers namely Singheshwar Prasad Verma and Rameshwar Prasad Verma in the year 1930 itself and in recognition of the said partition a memorandum was also prepared and signed by both the parties on 21.06.1959. It is also the case of these defendants that the defendant no.3 Ramkali Devi acquired properties in her own name out of Stridhan and thus the said properties are not joint family properties. It is further case of the defendants that the properties have also been acquired by the defendant no.1 in his own names out of his separate income and those properties are not the joint family properties. It is also the case of the defendants that the suit properties mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint also include the properties belonging to the strangers to the family as well as the properties which had already been sold away. It is also the case of the defendants that Sarsawati Press in Kadamkuan, Patna does not belong to the joint family rather it belongs to a stranger to the family. The defendants in their respective written statements have given the description of the properties in the different schedules thereto in order to specifically meet the claim of the plaintiffs with regard to the properties mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint. 6. In view of the rival pleadings of the parties, the learned court below framed altogether six issues out of which issue nos. IV and V have been tried as material issues and are as follows:– Issue No. IV:- Have the plaintiffs got unity of title and possession over the properties under partition? Issue No.V:- Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for partition as sought for? 7. IV and V have been tried as material issues and are as follows:– Issue No. IV:- Have the plaintiffs got unity of title and possession over the properties under partition? Issue No.V:- Are the plaintiffs entitled to a decree for partition as sought for? 7. After scrutinizing the evidence led by the parties in view of their pleadings, the trial court has returned the finding that the defendants have failed to prove their case of previous partition in the family. It has been further held that after the failure of the defendants to establish previous partition, the claim of defendant no.1 of self-acquisition also cannot be believed. It has, however, been held that the properties acquired in the name of the defendant no.3 Ramkali Devi are not the joint family properties, and as such the plaintiffs are not entitled to a share in the same. The suit has therefore, been decreed in part holding the plaintiffs to be entitled to half share in the suit properties except the properties in the name of defendant no. 3 Ram Kali Devi. 8. A cross objection has been filed in this appeal by the plaintiffs-respondents assailing the finding with regard to the properties in the name of defendant no.3 Ramkali Devi. 9. Mr. Ram Suresh Roy, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has, at the outset, submitted that the assail in this appeal is being confined to the part of the decree with regard to the self-acquired properties of the defendant no. 1 mentioned in Schedule III of the written statement of the defendant no.1 and also to the last item of the properties mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint, which is 2 katha 9 dhur of land in Mohalla- Kadamkuan, Patna and the assets of Sarswati Press set up thereupon. The limit of the assail in this appeal to the part of the decree only is also apparent in the note of argument filed on behalf of the appellant on 18.09.2013. 10. The limit of the assail in this appeal to the part of the decree only is also apparent in the note of argument filed on behalf of the appellant on 18.09.2013. 10. Questioning the legal pregnability of the impugned judgment with regard to the self-acquired properties and the assets of Sarswati Press including the property mentioned as last item of the properties in Schedule I of the plaint, the learned senior counsel has submitted that the learned court below has ignored the settled principles of law in this regard and the findings with regard to these properties are, therefore, vulnerable. It has been urged that even in state of jointness, a member of a joint family can make separate acquisition of property and the presumption in law in such a circumstance is that the said property exclusively belongs to him and is not joint family property. It has been canvassed that this presumption is however rebutted when the person claiming the said property to be joint family property establishes by pleading and evidence that the joint family had the adequate nucleus generating sufficient income for acquisition of the said property, and thereafter, the burden of proof shifts to the person, in whose name the said property stands, to establish his case of self-acquisition. The learned senior counsel has thus proponed that the learned court below, only on the basis of the finding that the defendants have failed to establish their case of previous partition, has erroneously proceeded to hold the properties separately acquired by the defendant no.1 and the defendant no.2 to be the joint family properties. The reliance in this regard has been placed upon the several decisions of the Privy Council and the Apex Court which shall be referred to appropriately later on. It has been further submitted that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the existence of nucleus in the joint family consisting of the two brothers Singheshwar Prasad Verma and Rameshwar Prasad Verma, and have also failed to establish income in the joint family of the two brothers sufficient for acquisition of the properties claimed by the defendant no.1 as his self acquisition and also the last item of the properties mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint, which has been acquired by the sale deed in the name of the defendant no.2. It has been further pointed out that the learned court below has also failed to record a finding with regard to the existence of nucleus and income in the family sufficient for acquisition of the above said properties. It has been submitted by the learned senior counsel that the plaintiffs in their depositions in the suit have squarely failed to specify existence of nucleus in the joint family generating sufficient income for acquisitions of the properties claimed by the defendant no.1 to be his self-acquisition out of his own income and with regard to 2 katha 9 dhur land in Kadamkuan, Patna purchased in the name of the defendant no. 2. It has also been asserted that the defendants have led cogent evidence to establish their separate acquisition of the properties mentioned in their written statement and exercise of separate exclusive possession over the same. 11. The learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents while supporting the impugned judgment has submitted that after the finding of existing joint status between the two brothers Singheshwar Prasad Verma and Rameshwar Prasad Verma, the case of self acquisition by the defendant no.1 or for that matter by the defendant no.2 cannot be accepted. It has been urged that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the defendant no.1 or the defendant no.2 had sufficient income to acquire the properties claimed by them to be their self-acquisition. The learned counsel has further submitted that the joint family properties as recorded in Exts. 15,15/A and 15/B in the joint names of the branches of the two brothers were fertile lands and yields from them generated sufficient income which formed the nucleus out of which the acquisitions of different properties had been made. It has been also submitted that the land purchased in the name of defendant no.2 in Kadamkuan, Patna is also the joint family property and the plaintiffs are entitled to have half share in the same as well as half share in the assets of Sarsawati Press. It has also been pointed out that as the appellant has confined this appeal only to the plots mentioned in the Schedule III of written statement of defendant no.1 and the plot over which Sarsawati Press has been running and its assets, and has not challenged the finding with regard to partition, the appeal cannot proceed. 12. It has also been pointed out that as the appellant has confined this appeal only to the plots mentioned in the Schedule III of written statement of defendant no.1 and the plot over which Sarsawati Press has been running and its assets, and has not challenged the finding with regard to partition, the appeal cannot proceed. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent no.8 who is a purchaser pendente lite of a part of the suit property from the appellant, has supported the submissions made on behalf of the appellant. 13. In support of the cross objection, the learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the learned court below has ignored the material evidence in this regard and has wrongly come to the finding that the properties in the name of the defendant no.3 Ramkali Devi are her self-acquired properties. It has been submitted that there is absolutely no evidence on behalf of the defendants to sustain the claim of self-acquisition of defendant no.3 whereas the plaintiffs have led sufficient evidence to establish the joint nature of the entire properties mentioned in the schedules of the plaint. 14. Mr Ram Suresh Roy, the learned senior counsel for the defendant no.2-appellant, however, in reply to the cross objection, has submitted that the defendant no.3 is admittedly a stranger to the coparcenery and the properties standing in her name will have to be accepted as her own property unless the plaintiffs succeed by leading cogent evidence to displace her apparent title and establish that those properties have been acquired out of the joint family fund. It has been urged that there is no pleading and evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs in this regard, and therefore, the learned court below has rightly negated the claim of partition of the properties in the name of defendant no.3 Ramkali Devi. 15. It has been urged that there is no pleading and evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs in this regard, and therefore, the learned court below has rightly negated the claim of partition of the properties in the name of defendant no.3 Ramkali Devi. 15. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, the following points emerge for determination:– (I) Whether the properties mentioned in Schedule III of the written statement of the defendant no.1 and claimed by him as his self-acquired properties are the joint family properties in which the plaintiffs have got half share and similarly whether the 2 katha 9 dhur land in Kadamkuan, Patna mentioned as the last item of the properties in Schedule I of the plaint is also the joint family properties and the asset of Sarsawati Press running on the said land are also the joint family properties in which the plaintiffs have got their half share? (II) Whether the finding recorded with regard to the properties in the name of the defendant no.3 Ramkali Devi (mentioned in schedule-I of her written statement) as assailed by the plaintiff-respondents by filing cross-objection, can be sustained? For convenience both the points are taken up together for consideration. 16. There is no dispute between the parties that Singheshwar Prasad Verma and Rameshwar Prasad Verma were full brothers being sons of Bhagwat Lal, and were members of a joint Hindu family. The plaintiffs who are the descendants of Singheshwar Prasad Verma have filed the suit for partition claiming their half share in the suit properties mentioned in Schedule I and II of the plaint. The properties mentioned in Schedule I of the plaint are immovable properties and the properties mentioned in Schedule II of the plaint are movable properties. The plaintiffs have come out with the case that the suit properties are the ancestral properties as well as the properties acquired out of joint family fund, and there has been no partition between the two brothers. 17. The defendants however, have asserted that there had already been partition in the year 1930 between the two brothers and the joint status had thereafter stood disrupted. 17. The defendants however, have asserted that there had already been partition in the year 1930 between the two brothers and the joint status had thereafter stood disrupted. The defendants have further claimed that most of the properties given in Schedule I of the plaint are the self-acquisitions of the defendant no.1, and defendant no.3 and have also categorized the properties and described the same in the schedules of their separate written statements. 18. In the written statement of the defendant no. 1, the properties described in its schedule-I have been claimed to be the self acquired properties of the defendant no. 3 Ramkali Devi and the property mentioned in schedule-III have been claimed as his self acquired property by the defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 has described the joint family property and the shares allotted to late Singheshawer Pd. Verma, the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, in schedule-II, IIA, and II B. Almost similar categories and descriptions have been made in the schedules of the written statements filed by the defendant no. 2, defendant no. 3 and defendant no. 3A to 3C. From the perusal of the written statements of the defendants and the schedules attached thereto, it is apparent that the self acquired properties of the defendant no. 1 Rameshwar Pd. Verma has the total area of 2.18 acres of land and the self acquired property of the defendant no. 3 Ramkali Devi is 6.08 acres of land. All the defendants, in their respective written statements, have consistently stated that the properties of Sarswati Press and its land (mentioned as last item of properties in schedule-I of the plaint), though acquired in the name of the defendant no. 2 Laliteshwar Pd. Verma are in fact the property of Chaturbhuj Prasad and it does not belong to the defendant no. 1 or defendant no. 2 or to the joint family of the plaintiffs and the defendants. 19. The plaintiffs have stated in paragraph-5 of the plaint that Singheshwar Pd. Verma out of his personal earnings as well as out of the surplus income of the joint family made new acquisitions in his name and in the name of his brother (defendant no. 1) and after the death of Singheshwar Pd. Verma, his brother Rameshwar Pd. 19. The plaintiffs have stated in paragraph-5 of the plaint that Singheshwar Pd. Verma out of his personal earnings as well as out of the surplus income of the joint family made new acquisitions in his name and in the name of his brother (defendant no. 1) and after the death of Singheshwar Pd. Verma, his brother Rameshwar Pd. Verma as karta of the family similarly also made new acquisitions out of the surplus income of the joint family properties and business in the name of one or the other member of the joint family. However, no detail of the surplus income out of the joint family property or business has been mentioned in the plaint. The plaintiff no. 1 Girish Nandan Pd. Verma and the plaintiff no. 2 Ratneshwari Nandan Verma have been examined as P.W. 33 and P.W. 35 in the suit but in their depositions also the two plaintiffs have not stated a word about the surplus income from the joint family property and business. There is also nothing in their depositions which can lead to the inference that the agricultural land of the family was very fertile and generated sufficient yield leading to surplus fund in the family. There is also no description of the nature and income from the family business and even with regard to the business of Sarswati Press, which the plaintiffs have claimed as joint family property, the plaintiff no. 1 as P.W. 33 has stated in paragraphs 10 and 11 of his deposition that the said press belonged to Rameshwar Pd. Verma and this plaintiff has not ever seen any paper relating to the said press. He has further deposed that he had no knowledge that his father had done any business in the said press and he has further accepted that he had not done any business of the said press and has no knowledge with regard to the details of the said press. Similarly, the plaintiff no. 2 Ratneshwari Nandan Verma as P.W. 35 has also expressed his ignorance about the details of the land of the family and has not stated anything with regard to the business and income from the Saraswati press. 20. There is also no other evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs to corroborate their case that the joint family had surplus income from the property and business. 20. There is also no other evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs to corroborate their case that the joint family had surplus income from the property and business. There is also no evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs to support their case that Singheshwar Pd. Verma had any personal earning which he utilized alongwith the joint family fund to acquire property in his name or in the name of his brother (defendant no. 1). 21. The defendants have claimed that the defendant no. 1 had acquired properties in his name out of his own income and similarly the defendant no. 3 had also acquired properties in her name out of her ‘Kaushal’ fund. The defendants have adduced in evidence the sale deeds (Exts. B-23, D/6, D/17 and D/12), Rehan deeds (Ext. H and H/2) and Patta (Ext. F) which are all in the name of defendant no. 1 Rameshwar Pd. Verma. Further, the recent survey Khatiyans (Exts. J and J/1) exclusively in the name of defendant no. 1 have also been brought in evidence on behalf of the defendants. The recent survey Khatiyans (Exts. 15, 15A and 15B) adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs also show that besides the joint khatas between the defendant no. 1 Rameshwar Pd. Verma and the plaintiffs, there are other khatas which have been exclusively recorded in the names of the defendant no. 1. The defendants have further brought in evidence the sale deeds (Ext. D series), Rehan deeds (Ext. H series) and Patta (Ext. F-1 and F-2) which are exclusively in the name of the defendant no. 3 Ramkali Devi. The recent survey Khatiyans (Ext. J/2, J/3, J/4 and J/5) have also been exclusively prepared in the name of the defendant no. 3 Ramkali Devi. The defendants have claimed the properties acquired and recorded in the names of the defendant no. 1 Rameshwar Pd. Verma and defendant no. 3 Ramkali Devi to be their self acquired properties. 22. The learned court below, after disbelieving the case of the defendants regarding previous partition, has held that the properties standing and recorded in the name of defendant no. 1 Rameshwar Pd. Verma are the joint family properties by observing that “ once the story of partition as set up by the defendants failed, the claim of self acquisition of defendant no. 1 goes away.” With regard to the properties claimed by the defendant no. 1 Rameshwar Pd. Verma are the joint family properties by observing that “ once the story of partition as set up by the defendants failed, the claim of self acquisition of defendant no. 1 goes away.” With regard to the properties claimed by the defendant no. 3 Ramkali Devi to be her self acquired properties, the learned court below, however, has rejected the claim of the plaintiffs that these properties are also the joint family properties, after finding that there was no evidence on behalf of the plaintiffs to establish the said fact. 23. It is now well settled that the property standing in the name of a member of a joint family which is claimed by him to be his separate property, shall be presumed to be so unless the person setting up a claim over that property as joint family property establishes by pleading and evidence that the joint family has sufficient property generating surplus income by way of nucleus adequate for the acquisition of the said property only whereafter the presumption stands rebutted. This principle has been succinctly elaborated by the Apex Court in the case of Srinivas Vs. Narayan, A.I.R. 1954 SC 379 and also subsequently reiterated, followed and explained in several decisions. Their Lordships in the case of Srinivas (supra) have approvingly referred to the principle in this regard as laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Appallaswami Vs. Suryanarayan Moti, A.I.R. 1947 P.C. 189 as follows:– “……..The Hindu law upon this aspect of this case is will settled. 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 is joint to establish the fact. 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 is 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……………………….…….” With regard to the nature and adequacy of nucleus their Lordships have further laid down as follows:– “……Whether the evidence adduced by the plaintiff was sufficient to shift the burden which initially rested on him of establishing that there was adequate nucleus out of which the acquisitions could have been made is one of fact depending on the nature and the extent of the nucleus. The important thing to consider is the income which the nucleus yields. A building in the occupation of the members of a family and yielding no income could not be a nucleus out of which acquisitions could be made, even though it might be of considerable value. On the other hand, a running business in which the capital invested is comparatively small might conceivably produce substantial income, which may well form the foundation of the subsequent acquisitions. These are not abstract questions of law, but questions of fact to be determined on the evidence in the case…..” 24. In the case of Mudigowda Gowdappa Sankh Vs. Ramchandra Revgowda Sankh & Anr, A.I.R. 1969 SC 1076 the same principle has been reiterated by the Apex Court. In the later decision in the case of D.S. Lakshmaiah Vs. L. Balasubramanyam A.I.R. 2003 SC 3800 the earlier decisions on the aforesaid principle have been noticed and thereafter it has been held as follows:– “…..The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available.…..” 25. Tested on the anvil of the aforesaid principles, it is clear therefore that only because the defendants have failed to establish their case of previous partition, the properties acquired by the defendant no. 1 Rameshwar Pd. Verma and defendant no. 3 Ramkali Devi, claimed by the defendants to be their self acquisitions, could not have been accepted as joint family properties. The plaintiffs, even after succeeding in rebutting the case of previous partition, were still required to plead and prove by leading cogent evidence that there existed surplus income and fund in the family adequate enough to acquire the properties claimed by the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 3 to be their self acquisitions. As stated above, there is no evidence adduced by the plaintiffs to establish the availability of adequate nucleus in the family in order to raise the presumption in their favour regarding the nature of the properties in the name of the defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 3 to be their joint family properties. The defendant nos. 3A, 3B and 3C in their written statement has stated that the total area of joint family property is only 4.69 decimal. The plaintiff no. 1 and 2 in their depositions have even not denied the said fact and have also failed to give the details of the ancestral properties and the accretions to the same, claimed by them to have been made out of the surplus income of the joint family. 26. Much emphasis, however, has been laid on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents and which also appear to have weighed with the learned court below that the defendant no. 1 or the defendant no. 3 had no independent source of income to enable them to acquire the properties claimed to be their self acquisitions. 26. Much emphasis, however, has been laid on behalf of the plaintiff-respondents and which also appear to have weighed with the learned court below that the defendant no. 1 or the defendant no. 3 had no independent source of income to enable them to acquire the properties claimed to be their self acquisitions. However, in view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court as noticed above the defendants were not required to establish the adequacy of their income to enable them to acquire those properties until the plaintiffs could have succeeded in establishing the nucleus with the family. This aspect has also been elucidated by the Apex Court in the case of D.S. Lakshmaiah (supra) where their Lordships have held as follows:– “……In view of the aforesaid discussion, the respondents having failed to discharge the initial burden of establishing that there was any nucleus in the form of any income whatsoever from item no. 2 property and no other nucleus was claimed, the burden remained on the respondents to establish that item no. 1 property was joint family property. In this view, the fact that first appellant has not led any evidence to establish his separate income is of no consequence insofar as the claim of the respondents is concerned. Under these circumstances, for failure to lead evidence, the respondents’ claim of item no. 1 to be joint family property would fall as rightly held by the first appellate court…….” 27. The aforesaid facts and discussions lead to the inevitable conclusion that the properties mentioned by the defendant no. 1 in schedule-III of his written statement and the property claimed by the defendant no. 3 in schedule-I of her written statement are their self acquired properties and not the joint family properties. The learned court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the properties claimed by the defendant no. 3 in schedule-I of her written statement are her separate properties but while deciding the nature of the properties mentioned in schedule-III of the written statement of the defendant no. 1, the learned court below has ignored the well settled principle, and its conclusion that these properties are also joint family property in which the plaintiffs have also got share is definitely erroneous and deserves to be overturned. It is so done accordingly. 28. 1, the learned court below has ignored the well settled principle, and its conclusion that these properties are also joint family property in which the plaintiffs have also got share is definitely erroneous and deserves to be overturned. It is so done accordingly. 28. The last item of the properties mentioned in schedule-I of the plaint is 2 katha 9 dhurs of land having a khapra posh house of bricks in which Sarswati Press has been set up. The properties of this press have also been claimed by the plaintiffs to be the joint family property. As mentioned above, the defendants have stated that the land and the assets of Sarswati Press do not belong to the joint family and are in fact the property of one Chaturbhuj Prasad. However, it has been admitted by the defendants that the 2 katha 9 dhurs of land on which the press has been set up has been acquired in the name of the defendant no. 2 although, it has also been asserted that the defendant no. 2 is only a Benamidar. From the sale deed (Ext. D/1), it transpires that this sale deed is with regard to the last item of the properties in schedule-I of the plaint and has been executed on 13.12.1962 in the name of the defendant no. 2 Laliteshwar Pd. Verma who has been described therein as minor under the guardianship of his father Rameshwar Pd. Verma. 29. The learned court below after scrutiny of the evidence in this regard has disbelieved the case of the defendants that the land, house and the assets of Sarswati Press belonged to Chaturbhuj Prasad and has held the same to be the joint family properties of the parties. The defendants have brought in evidence the letters (Ext. E series) to show that the government addressed Chaturbhuj Prasad as proprietor of the Sarswati Press. Further, the defendants have adduced in evidence the order dated 09.09.1963 passed in Misc. Case No. 277 of 1962 (Ext. M) to show that the properties of the Sarswati Press, under attachment, were released in favour of Chaturbhuj Prasad on his objection in that regard. However, the plaintiffs have brought in evidence the assessment register of the Patna Municipal Corporation (Ext. 8) for the year 1959-60 which shows that the holding no. 576 A ( new holding no. 672) has been recorded in the name of Rameshwar Pd. However, the plaintiffs have brought in evidence the assessment register of the Patna Municipal Corporation (Ext. 8) for the year 1959-60 which shows that the holding no. 576 A ( new holding no. 672) has been recorded in the name of Rameshwar Pd. Verma. This holding no. 672 has been mentioned in the sale deed (Ext. D/1) with reference to the property subject matter of the sale to the defendant no. 2 Laliteshwar Pd. Verma. Ext. 3 is the report dated 14.03.1969 of the Pleader Commissioner, appointed in the suit, and it shows that Rameshwar Pd. Verma has accepted before the Pleader Commissioner that the press in question belongs to him and he is in charge of the said press. In his show cause in case no. 578M of 1977 (under Section 144 Cr.P.C. for this property) the defendant no. 2 Laliteshwar Prasad Verma has stated in paragraph-C that he has purchased the property by registered sale deed dated 27.12.1962 executed by Ram Pyari Devi in his favour and thereafter has come in possession over the sold land and house. Ext. 9 is the cash register of Saraswati Press which throughout bears the signature of Rameshwar Pd. Verma and nowhere the name of Chaturbhuj Prasad has been mentioned. The defendants have not brought in evidence any document to establish the title of Chaturbhuj Prasad over the land and house in which the Sarswati Press has been set up and even no municipal receipt in his name has been produced by the defendants. After scanning all these evidence, the learned court below has rightly come to the conclusion that the defendants have failed to establish that the properties of Saraswati Press including the land and house belonged to Chaturbhuj Prasad and the defendant no. 1 was only the manager of the press and the defendant no. 2 was only a Benamidar. But even after the finding that the said properties belong to the defendants will not ipso facto make them the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants in which the plaintiffs can be held entitled to have share. 30. Much emphasis has been led by the learned court below on Ext. 4 and 5 and Ext. 11 to base its finding that the properties of Sarswati Press belong to the joint family of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Ext. 5, which bears the signature of Rameshwar Pd. 30. Much emphasis has been led by the learned court below on Ext. 4 and 5 and Ext. 11 to base its finding that the properties of Sarswati Press belong to the joint family of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Ext. 5, which bears the signature of Rameshwar Pd. Verma appears to be his statement containing the history of the Sarswati Press from its inception and also the accounts and income of the press from 1935 to 1937. This Ext. 5 is said to have accompanied the letter (Ext.4) sent by Rameshwar Pd. Verma to his elder brother (Singheshwar Pd. Verma). From the perusal of the contents of the letter (Ext. 4), it does not appear that it was sent by one share holder to another shareholder alongwith accounts, in usual course of business. It would be fruitful have to take into notice the contents of the portions of Ext. 4 and Ext. 5 which are as follows:– “Ext.-4- ljLorh izsl ds nks lky dk vk; O;; uqdlku ds pkVZ ds lkFk Hkst jgk gw¡A vki bls ns[kdj vius fVIi.kh ds lkFk ;Fkk'kh?kz okil djus dk d"V djsaxs eSus viuk iQtZ le>k fd vius dkjokj dk fjiksVZ vkidks nw¡ vkSj vkils vius Hkfo"; dk dksbZ mins'k ywWa blds Hkstus dk ;gh esjh ea'kk gS ----** “Ext.-5- izsl dk dke 1 uoEcj 1935 ls vkjaHk fd;k x;k exj lkjk lkeku Bhd Bkd djrs nks ekl yx x;kA ml le; iwath u Fkh vkSj u vke yksxksa esa bldk izpkj Fkk-------------tks yksx esjs bl dke esa lgk;rk fd;k mUgs èkU;okn fn;s jgk Hkh u tkrkA eq>s fo'okl gS bZ'oj esjs dke esa lgk;rk djsaxs vkSj vHkh rd fd;k gS-^^ 31. The perusal of the above statements, clearly indicates that Rameshwar Pd. Verma had started the said press with his own effort. The letter (Ext. 4) also shows that it had been written soliciting suggestion and guidance with regard to “his own business” by Rameshwar Pd. Verma. The mention of the words ‘Apane karbar’ in Ext. 4 and ‘Mere is kam me’ in Ext.-5 are also self explanatory. There is nothing in the Ext. 4 and 5 to show that Singheshwar Pd. Verma, who was brother of Rameshwar Pd. Verma, had a joint interest in the business of the press rather the contrary is more emphasized. Ext. 11 is the character certificate granted to the plaintiff no. 2 Ratneshwari Nandan Pd. Verma. There is nothing in the Ext. 4 and 5 to show that Singheshwar Pd. Verma, who was brother of Rameshwar Pd. Verma, had a joint interest in the business of the press rather the contrary is more emphasized. Ext. 11 is the character certificate granted to the plaintiff no. 2 Ratneshwari Nandan Pd. Verma. From this certificate, it is clear that the plaintiff no. 2 Ratneshwari Nandan Pd. Verma worked as an employee in the Firm. This Ext. 11, which has been produced by the plaintiffs themselves, is clearly inconsistent with their case that they are co sharers in the business of the press in question and the properties of Sarswati press are joint family properties. The conclusion drawn by the learned court below on the basis of these documents in favour of the plaintiffs is clearly erroneous. Moreover, the plaintiff no. 1 Girish Nandan Pd. Verma in his depositions as P.W.-33 has also expressed no concern with the press. He has deposed in paragraph-11 as follows:– “……. eq>s ekyqe ugh fd gekjs firkth ml izsl dk dksbZ dkjokj fd;s ;k ugh A muds ejus ds ckn eSus ml izsl dk dksbZ dkjokj ugh fd;k gS A ljLorh izsl ds fdlh Hkh O;kSjk dks eS ugh tkurkA ….” 32. These facts, along with the failure of the plaintiffs to establish adequate nucleus in the family, leave no room for doubt that the properties of Sarswati Press including the land and house mentioned as last item of properties in schedule-I of the plaint are not joint family properties and the plaintiffs are not entitled to have a share in the same by a decree of partition. 33. In view of the above reasons and discussions, it is held that the properties mentioned in schedule-III of the written statement of the defendant no. 1 are his self acquired properties and the properties mentioned in schedule-I of the written statement of the defendant no. 3 Ramkali Devi are her self acquired properties and the plaintiffs have got no share in the same. Further, it is also held that the properties of Sarswati Press including the land and house mentioned as last item of properties in schedule-I of the plaint are also not the joint family property and the plaintiffs are held not entitled to have a share in the same. Further, it is also held that the properties of Sarswati Press including the land and house mentioned as last item of properties in schedule-I of the plaint are also not the joint family property and the plaintiffs are held not entitled to have a share in the same. The contrary findings by the learned court below to these extents are accordingly set aside. 34. In result, this appeal is allowed in part and the judgment and decree of the learned court below to the extent indicated above are accordingly set aside. The cross objection filed by the plaintiff-respondents is also dismissed. The plaintiffs are held entitled to half share in the suit properties other than the last item of properties mentioned in schedule-I of the plaint, the movable assets of Sarswati Press as mentioned in schedule-II of the plaint, the properties mentioned in schedule-III of the written statement of the defendant no. 1 and the properties mentioned in schedule-1 of the written statement of the defendant no. 3. Let a preliminary decree be drawn up, accordingly.