CAV ORDER The present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, with a prayer to quash an order dated 29-10-2003 passed by Sri P. Lal, Additional Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as ‘Addl. Member, Board of Revenue’) in Board Case No. 326 of 1996. By the said order, learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, by setting aside orders of the court below, has allowed the Revision Case No. 326 of 1996. 2. Short fact of the case is that respondent no. 5, namely; Satindra Kumar Singh, son of Late Rawaneshwar Prasad Singh had transferred one Bigha & three Katha of land through registered sale-deed dated 27-12-1990 in favour of petitioner. Admittedly, the land in question was agricultural land. The said land was out of Plot No. 1672 & 1673 in Khata No. 734 & 739 respectively in Village - Chamtha Mahal, Ahiyapur, Bachhwara circle in the district of Begusarai. Boundary of the land, as mentioned in the writ petition, is as follows:- North – Niz (Vendor) South – Muneshwar Singh East – Sona Singh & Mohan Singh West – Shiv Sagar Singh and Mishri Rai 3. After the registration of the sale-deed, the respondent nos. 6 & 7, namely; Yatindra Kumar Singh and Navindra Kumar Singh, both sons of late Rawaneshwar Prasad Singh (full brothers of vendor-respondent no. 5) filed a petition under Section 16 (3) of the Bihar Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling Area and Acquisition of Surplus Land) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Ceiling Act’), which was registered as Ceiling Case No. 10 of 1991 in the court of Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Begusarai (hereinafter referred to as ‘D.C.L.R.’), claiming right of pre-emption over the land in question. After hearing the parties, learned D.C.L.R., by its order dated 15-05-1992, dismissed the pre-emption case. Thereafter, respondent nos. 6 & 7 filed appeal, vide Ceiling Appeal Case No. 39 of 1992 in the court of Collector, Begusarai, which too was dismissed on 24-10-1996. From the record, it appears that after rejection of the appeal, the respondent nos. 6 & 7 had preferred a revision before the Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, which was ultimately allowed. Thereafter, respondent nos. 6 & 7 filed appeal, vide Ceiling Appeal Case No. 39 of 1992 in the court of Collector, Begusarai, which too was dismissed on 24-10-1996. From the record, it appears that after rejection of the appeal, the respondent nos. 6 & 7 had preferred a revision before the Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, which was ultimately allowed. The petitioner (purchaser), thereafter, approached this Court by filing a writ petition, vide C.W.J.C. No. 1295 of 2000 and a Bench of this Court, after hearing the parties and considering the fact that order passed by the Addl. Member, Board of Revenue was an ex-parte order, this Court, by its order dated 09-02-2001, set aside the order and remitted back the matter to the court of Addl. Member, Board of Revenue for re-hearing and deciding the issue in accordance with law. The order dated 09-02-2001 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1295 of 2000 has been brought on record, as Annexure ‘6’ to the writ petition. After the matter was remitted back, the learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue, by the impugned order i.e. order dated 29-10-2003, allowed the revision, which was filed by pre-emptors/respondent nos. 6 & 7 and the revisional court set aside the orders passed by the court below, which has been assailed in the present writ petition. 4. Sri Shashi Shekhar Dwivedi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has argued that the revisional court has passed the impugned order contrary to the settled principle of law. He submits that there was no error either in the order of the D.C.L.R. or the appellate court i.e. Collector, Begusarai, even then, on unsustainable ground, the learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue has allowed the revision petition filed by the pre-emptors. He submits that the petitioner herself was an adjoining raiyat, in view of the fact that in the western boundary of the land in question, land of brother of husband of petitioner, namely; Sri Mishri Rai was recorded. He submits that in between husband of the petitioner and his brother, no partition had taken place and they were continuing possession jointly over the adjoining land. He further submits that though land in question was purchased in the name of petitioner, but it was purchased on the basis of income of joint family and as such, petitioner herself was adjoining raiyat. He further submits that though land in question was purchased in the name of petitioner, but it was purchased on the basis of income of joint family and as such, petitioner herself was adjoining raiyat. He has further argued that pre-emptors were neither co-sharer nor they were adjoining raiyat. It has been emphasized that about 20 years back, partition in between vendor and pre-emptors had already taken place and the vendor was enjoying possession over the land in question independently. Accordingly, pre-emptors were not even adjoining raiyat in land in question. He further submits that before the court below, a specific stand was taken by the petitioner that pre-emptors were neither co-sharers nor adjoining raiyats, but said stand was not specifically controverted by the pre-emptors (respondent nos. 6 & 7) by filing a written statement. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of absence of specific denial, it will be presumed that pre-emptors had accepted the stand of the petitioner. In support of his submission, Sri Dwivedi has heavily relied on a judgment of this Court, reported in AIR 1964 PATNA 348 (PUNIT RAI AND ANOTHER –VERSUS- MOHAMMAD MAJID AND OTHERS). He further submits that since the petitioner herself had stated that she was adjoining raiyat, onus was on the pre-emptors to disprove the same. On this very point, he has relied on 1995 (1) PLJR 764 (RAM PRAVESH SINGH –VERSUS- THE ADDITIONAL MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHER). He further submits that once the pre-emptors i.e. respondent nos. 6 & 7 had taken the plea that they were joint with respondent no. 5 (vendor), onus was on the pre-emptors to prove that they were joint. However, in the present case, according to Sri Dwivedi, pre-emptors had completely failed to establish their jointness with vendor. He submits that in view of a Division Bench Judgment of this Court, reported in AIR 1972 PATNA 389 (NAND KISHORE PANDEY AND OTHERS –VERSUS- P.P.AGRAWAL AND OTHERS), it was mandatorily required on the part of the pre-emptors to establish their jointness. In absence of establishing the case of jointness, they were not entitled to say that they were co-sharer or adjoining raiyat of the land in question. He submits that even in aforesaid situation, the learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue has allowed the revision filed by the pre-emptors, vide impugned order i.e. Annexure ‘3’ to the writ petition. In absence of establishing the case of jointness, they were not entitled to say that they were co-sharer or adjoining raiyat of the land in question. He submits that even in aforesaid situation, the learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue has allowed the revision filed by the pre-emptors, vide impugned order i.e. Annexure ‘3’ to the writ petition. On aforesaid grounds, he submits that order impugned is liable to be set aside. 5. Sri Purnendu Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 6 & 7/pre-emptors has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He submits that by filing pre-emption case under Section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act, it was categorically stated that vendor of the petitioner i.e. respondent no. 5 was full brother of pre-emptors i.e. respondent nos. 6 & 7. Sri Singh, while referring to averment made in counter affidavit, submits that pre-emptors and vendor of the petitioner were joint and undivided family, governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The pre-emptors have given the genealogical table of the family of the pre-emptors and vendor, which is as follows:- Late Ram Pratap Singh : (a) Late Mahendra Nr. Singh (b) Late Mahip Nr. Singh (c) Late Mode Nr. Singh Late Ramwaneshwar Pd. Singh = Smt. Kadma Devi (70 yrs.) (A) Yatrindra Kr.Singh (Respondent no.6) Pre-emptor (B) Satindra Kr. Singh (Respondent no.5) Vendor (C) Navindra Kr. Singh (Respondent no.7) Pre-emptor 6. It has been highlighted that great grand-father of pre-emptors and vendor died long long ago leaving behind three sons namely, Mahendra Narayan Singh, Mahip Narayan Singh and Mode Narayan Singh, who separated from each other long ago and they had no connection whatsoever. Since then Mahip Narayan Singh, grand father of pre-emptors (respondent nos. 6 & 7) and vendor (respondent no. 5) acquired substantial landed properties. Mahip Narayan Singh died leaving behind his only son, namely; Rawaneshwar Prasad Singh, who died leaving behind him his widow (Smt. Kadma Devi) since deceased and three sons, who are none else but respondent no. 5/Vendor and respondent nos. 6 & 7/pre-emptors. He further submits that after the death of their father, respondent nos. 5 to 7 were continuing in jointness and respondent nos. 5 to 7 constituted a Mitakshara Coparcenary and have undivided interests in the coparcenary properties including the transferred land in question. 5/Vendor and respondent nos. 6 & 7/pre-emptors. He further submits that after the death of their father, respondent nos. 5 to 7 were continuing in jointness and respondent nos. 5 to 7 constituted a Mitakshara Coparcenary and have undivided interests in the coparcenary properties including the transferred land in question. He further submits that though father of vendor and pre-emptors died, but jamabandi is still continuing in the name of their father namely, Rawaneshwar Prasad Singh, vide Jamabandi No. 2103 within Bachhwara Anchal. He further highlights that in the sale-deed in question in the northern side, it has been mentioned as ‘Niz’, meaning thereby that vendor and pre-emptors are on the northern side. It has been argued that though before the court below vendor had appeared but nothing was brought on record to establish that partition in between vendor and pre-emptors had earlier taken place. On the contrary, in view of continuance of jambandi in the name of their father (i.e. Rawaneshwar Prasad Singh), it was established that pre-emptors i.e. respondent nos. 6 & 7 were co-sharer and adjoining raiyats. It has further been argued by Sri Purnendu Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 & 7 that the petitioner was not an adjoining raiyat. He submits that it is true that petitioner was wife of brother of Mishri Rai, whose name was recorded as adjoining raiyat. Accordingly, it can not be said that the petitioner was adjoining raiyat of the land in question. He further submits that right of pre-emption is a statutory right and as such, this statutory right could have been defeated only by specific implication in accordance with law, whereas, the learned D.C.L.R. or even the Collector, ignoring the basic fact, had disallowed the claim of pre-emptors, which has rightly been set-aside by the revisional court, vide order dated 29-10-2003 passed by learned Addl. Member, Board of Revenue (kept as Annexure ‘3’ to the writ petition). In support of his argument that right of pre-emption of respondent nos. 6 & 7 was not to be defeated in the manner, in which, learned court below had done, has relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in (2010) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 441 (SURESH PRASAD SINGH VS. DULHIN PHULKUMARI DEVI AND OTHERS). 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. 6 & 7 was not to be defeated in the manner, in which, learned court below had done, has relied on a judgment of the Apex Court in (2010) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES 441 (SURESH PRASAD SINGH VS. DULHIN PHULKUMARI DEVI AND OTHERS). 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. From order dated 15-05-1992 passed in Ceiling Case No. 10 of 1991 by D.C.L.R., it is evident that the petitioner, while opposing the pre-emption case, had taken a stand that though pre-emptors were co-sharers, but they were not adjoining raiyat, as per contents of the sale-deed. The learned D.C.L.R. in 4th paragraph at page 2 of its order, has noticed this fact. The learned D.C.L.R. had considered the petitioner as adjoining raiyat only on the ground that husband of petitioner and his brother were joint and as such, he was of the opinion that since the petitioner herself was adjoining raiyat, there was no question of allowing petition under Section 16(3) of the Ceiling Act in favour of pre-emptors (respondent nos. 6 & 7). Similarly, the appellate court i.e. Collector, Bugusarai, in its order dated 24-10-1996 passed in Ceiling Appeal Case No. 39 of 1992, has considered that the petitioner was wife of brother of adjoining raiyat, namely; Mishri Rai and decided the appeal against the pre-emptors. All those facts were considered by the revisional court and the revisional court at the time of hearing revision after the order of remand passed by this Court had noticed the genealogical table produced by pre-emptors as well as examined the Jamabandi Certificate No. 2102, which was running in the name of father of pre-emptors and vendor i.e. respondent nos. 5 to 7. Since there was nothing on record to disapprove the jointness of respondent nos. 5 to 7, the learned revisional court rightly concluded that the pre-emptors were co-sharer and adjoining raiyat. Moreover, onus was on vendor and the purchaser to establish that vendor had separated from his father. This onus was not discharged either by the vendor or the purchaser. Admittedly, the pre-emptors were coparcenar and coparcenary properties continued to be joint since nothing contrary was brought on record. The jamabandi of land in question was continuing in the name of father of pre-emptors and vendor. This onus was not discharged either by the vendor or the purchaser. Admittedly, the pre-emptors were coparcenar and coparcenary properties continued to be joint since nothing contrary was brought on record. The jamabandi of land in question was continuing in the name of father of pre-emptors and vendor. So far as question as to whether the petitioner was adjoining raiyat or not, the Court is of the opinion that being wife of brother of adjoining raiyat, the petitioner may not be treated as adjoining raiyat. In the present case, it is a fact that land in question was purchased in the name of petitioner. In view of settled law, a Hindu even if, he be joint, may possess a separate property and such property belongs exclusively to him. This proposition has been noticed by a Division Bench of this Court in a case, reported in AIR 1972 PATNA 389 (NAND KISHORE PANDEY AND OTHERS –VERSUS- P.P. AGRAWAL AND OTHERS). Learned senior counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on this judgment. The proposition of law enunciated by this Court in Nand Kishore Pandey’s case (supra) is against the contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner. So far as Punit Rai’s case (supra) is concerned, the Court is of the opinion that it is not in dispute that a stand taken in a plaint has to be controverted by specific statement in a written statement, but in the present case, the fact that vendor and pre-emptors were co-sharer and adjoining raiyat, was already established, which has been noticed by the Revisional Court. Similarly, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, the petitioner may not get any help from Ram Pravesh Singh’s case (supra). 8. After going through the materials available on record and in view of discussion made here-in-above, this Court is of the view that learned Revisional Court has committed no error in allowing the revision and setting aside the orders passed by the court below. 9. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. 10. The writ petition stands dismissed.