JUDGMENT 1) This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No.196 of 1985 which was pending in the Court of the Additional District Judge Beed. The appeal filed by the respondent – defendant against the judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No.43 of 1980 is allowed by the First Appellate Court. The trial Court had given judgment and decree of permanent injunction in favour of appellant/ plaintiff and that decision is set aside by the First Appellate Court. Both the sides are heard. 2) The plaintiff is wife of brother of the defendant. The suit was filed in respect of agricultural land bearing Sy. No.114 situated at Beed and admeasuring 7 acres. It is also in respect of one half share in the water of well situated in Survey No.114. 3) It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was purchased by her from the funds given by her father, under registered sale dated 19-1-1975. It is her case that from the date of purchase she has been in possession of the suit property as absolute owner. It is her case that she has spent Rs.9,000/- to 10,000/- for improving the quality of this land. It is her case that the defendant is falsely contending that the suit property is Joint Hindu family property of defendant and his brothers. It is contended that the defendant is trying to disturb the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. Relief of permanent injunction was sought by the plaintiff /appellant. 4) The defendant has filed written statement and he has contended that his father Kishansing had three brothers including one Ratansing. It is his case that Ratansing was dead and he has left behind his widow and issues. It is contended that Jamnabai, widow of Ratansing had filed a suit for relief of partition against Kishansing and others. It is contended that the trial Court had decreed the suit in favour of Jamnabai in the year 1971 but the appeal filed by the defendant was pending in District Court. 5) It is the case of the defendant that in view of the proceeding pending, the suit property was purchased in the year 1975 in the name of the plaintiff. 5) It is the case of the defendant that in view of the proceeding pending, the suit property was purchased in the year 1975 in the name of the plaintiff. It is contended that only due to pendency of the aforesaid proceeding and due to fear that Jamnabai may include the newly purchased property also in the suit, the property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff. It is contended that defendant was minor at the relevant time. 6) It is the case of the defendant that Kishansing was having a grocery shop and after his death three sons like defendant, husband of plaintiff (Bharatsing) and Madansing continued to run the shop. It is contended that, they became partners after the death of Kishansing. It is his case that after death of Kishansing they continued to live in Hindu joint family and in the year 1975 when the property was purchased they were members of the Hindu joint family. It is contented that from the income of the aforesaid shop, the suit property was purchased. It is contended that Bharatsing, husband of the plaintiff, was managing the affairs and he was even running the grocery shop. 7) It is the case of the defendant that the suit property was never in actual possession of the plaintiff and three brothers were together cultivating the land. It is contended that electric motor was fixed on the well from the income of the shop. It is contended that plaintiff has no source of income and she is falsely contending that her father had given money for purchasing the suit property. It is contended that not only the suit property but other lands were also purchased from the income of the shop and other lands were purchased in the name of son of the plaintiff. 8) It is the case of the defendant that, in the year 1979 partition took place amongst the defendant, Bharatsing and Madansing. It is contended that the suit property came to the share of the defendant and since then he is cultivating the suit property as absolute owner. It is contended that three lands purchased in the name of son of the plaintiff from Kumsi were given to the share of Madansing and he has been cultivating those lands as absolute owner. It is contended that memorandum of partition was prepared on 9-3-1980. It is contended that three lands purchased in the name of son of the plaintiff from Kumsi were given to the share of Madansing and he has been cultivating those lands as absolute owner. It is contended that memorandum of partition was prepared on 9-3-1980. It is contended that husband of the plaintiff was party to the partition and he has signed on the memorandum of partition. 9) Issues were framed in accordance with the aforesaid pleadings. There was issue against the plaintiff and she was required to prove that the suit property is her self acquired property or "Stridhan". There was issue against the defendant and he was to prove that the suit property is Joint Hindu Family property. There was issue in respect of partition also. 10) The trial Court held that Motising, father of the plaintiff, had given money to the plaintiff for purchasing the suit property. The trial Court relied on the entries made in the account of the grocery shop showing that Motising had account in the grocery shop and he had deposited the money in the account. It was held by the trial Court that the suit property is the Stridhan property of the plaintiff. The First Appellate Court has held that the property was purchased from the income of the grocery shop, the joint Hindu family business and the suit is dismissed. 11) This Court has decided by order dated 5-7-1994 that the grounds mentioned in the appeal memo viz. Grounds V, VI, VIII and XI will be treated as substantial questions of law. Thus, the substantial questions of law formulated by this Court are as under :- (i) Whether under section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act plaintiff needs to be treated as absolute owner of the suit property and the property needs to be treated as her "Stridhan" property ? (ii) Whether the plaintiff needs to be treated as owner in view of the provision of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act ? (iii) Whether the defence raised by the defendant that the property belongs to Hindu Joint Family is acceptable in view of the facts and circumstances of the case; and, (iv) Whether the First Appellate Court has committed error in holding that the property was purchased from the Joint Hindu Family business ? 12) For proving her case, the plaintiff examined herself and she examined her father Motising. 12) For proving her case, the plaintiff examined herself and she examined her father Motising. She has relied on the sale deed executed in her favour in respect of the suit property. Though the person who wrote the accounts of the shop is examined by defendant, the plaintiff has relied on the entries made in the accounts of the grocery shop. 13) The plaintiff has admitted relationship of defendant and her husband. She has further admitted that after the death of Kishansing, his three sons like defendant, Madansing and husband of plaintiff (Bharatsing) continued to live in Joint Hindu family. 14) The plaintiff has given evidence that the suit land was purchased by her for consideration of Rs. 13,000/-and this amount was given to her by her father Motising. She has deposed that the amount was given by sending drafts in the year 1973,1977 etc. Such particulars were not given in the plaint. In her evidence for the first time she has deposed that her husband had given only Rs.8000/- to her on the date of sale deed. Her evidence shows that in addition to the amount of Rs.13,000/-, an amount of Rs.3000/-was required to be given as consideration for purchasing share in the water of well. She has given evidence that she spent Rs.8,000 to 10,000 for installation of electric motor on the well and for improving the quality of the land. 15) In addition to the aforesaid admissions, the evidence of the plaintiff shows that the grocery shop was started by Kishansingh and when evidence was given it was being run in the name of Bharatsing Kishansing. The evidence of the plaintiff shows that the accounts of the shop were maintained by Bharatsing, her husband, and he started running the shop after death of Kishansing. The evidence of the defendant also shows that Bharatsing was actually running the shop and he was having control over the accounts of the shop. In view of these circumstances, reliability of the entries made in the accounts of the shop needs to be ascertained. The evidence in the cross examination of the plaintiff shows that in the past, in a previous case, under the directions given by the High Court, Bharatsing was prosecuted for creating false record for litigation and he was convicted also. In view of these circumstances, reliability of the entries made in the accounts of the shop needs to be ascertained. The evidence in the cross examination of the plaintiff shows that in the past, in a previous case, under the directions given by the High Court, Bharatsing was prosecuted for creating false record for litigation and he was convicted also. This circumstance also needs to be kept in mind as Bharatsing is not examined as a witness by the plaintiff. 16) Motising, father of the plaintiff, has given evidence that in the year 1970-71 itself he had assured the plaintiff to give her Rs.13,000/- for purchasing landed property. His evidence shows that it is based mainly on the entries made in the account of the grocery shop. There is no signature of this witness on the account and no record regarding actual deposit of the amount or withdrawal of the amount which can be called as independent record is produced. He has given evidence that on 21-4-1973 he had deposited an amount of Rs.5000/- but the amount of Rs.2500/-was withdrawn by him on 10-7-1974. The sale deed was executed on 19-9-1975 and on that date as per the accounts, at the most amount of Rs.2500/- was on credit side in the account of Motising. The entry dated 19-9-1975 shows that amount of Rs.13000/- was given to the plaintiff from the account of Motising. There are some entries dated 20-10-1976, 6-9-1977 and 9-9-1977 to show that more amount was shown to be credited in the account of Motising. The entries are made in such a way that the amount of Rs.15,500/- is shown to be credited and similar amount is shown to be debited. 17) The evidence of the plaintiff in the cross-examination shows that she has avoided to admit many things which are not denied in the pleading and which were not disputed even by her, in the evidence. Her evidence shows that her version is not consistent with the pleading. It is not consistent with the entries in the account of shop and it is not consistent with the evidence given by Motising. In the cross-examination she has stated that on the date of the sale-deed, she was having amount of Rs.13,000/- in her hand and this amount was sent by her father two years prior to the date of sale-deed. In the cross-examination she has stated that on the date of the sale-deed, she was having amount of Rs.13,000/- in her hand and this amount was sent by her father two years prior to the date of sale-deed. She has specifically deposed that the amount was sent by her father in the year 1973 and it was kept by her in the house itself. She has given specific admission that this amount was not shown in the assets of the shop. 18) Plaintiff has given evidence that amount of Rs. 3000/-given as consideration for purchasing share in the water of well was available with her as sale proceed, of agricultural produce. There is no debit entry in respect of this amount in the accounts of the shop. Motising has tried to show that on 6-9-1977 he had deposited cash amount of Rs.2000/-in the account of the shop. This amount has no relevance with the transaction of purchase. 19) The evidence of the plaintiff shows that she has avoided to admit that partition has taken place. From the evidence of the plaintiff it can be said that she cannot be believed and the First Appellate Court has rightly appreciated the aforesaid evidence of the plaintiff. 20) The evidence of Motising and the document like copy of plaint of RCS No.6/1985 show that in the year 1970 an amount of Rs.14,000/- was given by Kishansing to Motising and it was for transaction of sale of agriculture land admeasuring 13 Acres 6 Gunthas belonging to Motising. The suit was filed as sale deed was not executed by Motising. In the evidence, Motising has tried to say that he had returned the amount of Rs.14000/-but there is no such record with him. 21) The defendant has given evidence that Bharatsing was looking after the shop and in the partition the shop was given to Bharatsing. According to him partition took place at the time of Diwali festival of 1979. He has given evidence that memorandum of partition was prepared subsequently. The evidence shows that the decision given in favour of Jamnabai had become final in 1978 and she was given her share. After that, partition amongst the defendant and his two brothers took place. 22) The defendant has given evidence that after death of Kishansing they continued to live in joint Hindu family. The evidence shows that the decision given in favour of Jamnabai had become final in 1978 and she was given her share. After that, partition amongst the defendant and his two brothers took place. 22) The defendant has given evidence that after death of Kishansing they continued to live in joint Hindu family. He has given evidence that they were getting income from the aforesaid shop, from the agricultural land and also from rent. He has given evidence that the suit property and three other properties were purchased in the name of the plaintiff and minor son of the plaintiff during pendency of litigation filed by Jamnabai. He has given evidence that property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff and son of the plaintiff to take care that the newly purchased properties are not included in the litigation filed by Jamnabai. He has given evidence that in the partition, the suit property came to his share and since then he has been cultivating the suit land. He has given evidence that his name is also recorded in the revenue record of the suit property as the owner and person cultivating the suit property. 23) The defendant has given evidence that three memoranda of partition were prepared and one memorandum was given to each brother. He has produced memorandum of partition signed by Bharatsing at Exhibit 71. The other memorandum of partition which was given to Madansing is at Exhibit 73 and it is also signed by Bharatsing. Though this record was created on 9-9-1980, subsequent to the date of the suit, this record cannot be ignored as it is created by the husband of the plaintiff and it is important to decide the nature of the property. 24) Hiralal, husband of sister of defendant has given evidence that he was present when oral partition took place at the time of Diwali festival of 1979 and when memorandum of partition was prepared. His signature appears on Exhibit 71 and Exhibit 73. Madansing, brother of the defendant, has given evidence similar to the evidence given by defendant and his signature appears on Exhibit 71. The evidence of these two brothers shows that they had no occasion to see the accounts of the shop from 1971 to 1979. His signature appears on Exhibit 71 and Exhibit 73. Madansing, brother of the defendant, has given evidence similar to the evidence given by defendant and his signature appears on Exhibit 71. The evidence of these two brothers shows that they had no occasion to see the accounts of the shop from 1971 to 1979. 25) There is evidence of the defendant, Madansing and the vendor of the suit land, Jadhav to the effect that, the property was purchased by the defendant and his two brothers from the income of the shop. Though the sale deed was executed in the name of plaintiff the sale deed shows that the plaintiff was not present in the office of the Sub Registrar when the document was executed and only her husband was present there. 26) Dagadu, the employee of the shop who wrote the accounts of the shop was examined by the defendant to show that there was income from the shop. His evidence shows that he was working to write the account. It can be said that Bharatsing was running the shop and Dagadu was working under him. In the examination in chief he has stated that the suit property and other lands from village Kumsi were purchased from the income of the shop. The aforesaid entries in respect of the amount of Motising are proved in the cross examination of Dagadu by learned counsel for the plaintiff. Entry dated 19-9-1975 is to the effect that, amount of Rs.13000/-was handed over to the plaintiff for her father, Motising. However, this entry does not show that the amount was given for purchasing the property. 27) There is specific defence of the defendant that property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff due to pending litigation by Jamnabai. The defendant has come with specific case that three more properties were purchased similarly in the name of the son of the plaintiff due to such litigation. There is evidence like revenue entries in respect of three lands from village Kumsi. The record shows that properties were purchased in the name of minor son of the plaintiff and father of minor son, was shown as guardian. These lands were given in partition to Madansing as per the aforesaid record of partition. There is evidence like revenue entries in respect of three lands from village Kumsi. The record shows that properties were purchased in the name of minor son of the plaintiff and father of minor son, was shown as guardian. These lands were given in partition to Madansing as per the aforesaid record of partition. Thus, the case of the defendant that, though the property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff, it was purchased from joint family income and it is given to the defendant in partition appears to be probable. 28) Bharatsing, husband of the plaintiff, was running the shop and under his directions entries in the accounts were made. There are no signatures of the defendant or other brother on the account to bind them. On the other hand, there are admissions of the husband of plaintiff about the nature of the suit property in the memorandum of partition. The admission is sufficient to show that the suit property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff but it was purchased from the income of the joint Hindu family business. From the provision of section 34 of the Evidence Act it can be said that such entries are relevant but they themselves cannot create liability against third party. Thus, on preponderance of probability the defendant has proved that there was nucleus for purchasing landed property and there was sufficient income from the nucleus for purchasing the suit property. 29) There is record prepared by the revenue authorities during inquiry made under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The record includes panchanamas. This record shows that when the dispute was taken to the revenue authorities, the revenue authorities found that the defendant was in possession of the suit property and he was cultivating the suit property. This record has presumptive value as every year such enquiry is made and entries are made after inspection in cultivation column. It is not the case of the plaintiff that possession was forcibly taken away from her by the defendant. Revenue proceeding was decided in favour of the defendant. 30) Under the Hindu law, to render the property joint, the party claiming so is required to prove that the joint Hindu family was possessing some property with income of which the property in question could have been acquired. If that is done, the presumption can be drawn in favour of such party. 30) Under the Hindu law, to render the property joint, the party claiming so is required to prove that the joint Hindu family was possessing some property with income of which the property in question could have been acquired. If that is done, the presumption can be drawn in favour of such party. Thus only family nucleus is required to be proved if existence of joint Hindu family is not disputed. Such presumption needs to be rebutted by party who claims that it is his/her self acquired property. (reliance is placed on AIR 1997 SC 1333 [Sher Singh v. Gamdoor Singh]). Thus mere evidence that the property was purchased in the name of one person does not render the property as his separate property. The facts and circumstances of the present case are sufficient to indicate that the property was purchased in the name of the plaintiff from the joint family income. In view of the aforesaid material it cannot be said that it was Stridhan of the plaintiff. There is no substantial question of law involved under provisions of Benami Transaction (Prohibition) Act. All the aforesaid points are answered against the plaintiff / appellant. The First Appellate Court has not committed any error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff. 31) In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.