JUDGMENT Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J. 1. Heard Sri Sharad Dwivedi, holding brief of Sri Durga Prasad Dwivedi, for the petitioner and Sri Ashwini Ojha, for the contesting respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the orders of Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation dated 09.01.1974 and Deputy Director of Consolidation dated 21.04.1980, passed in title proceeding under U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). 3. The dispute between the parties relates to khata 47 (consisting plots 398/1, 398/2, 400/3 and 400) of village Saraiya Pure Saun and khata-104 (consisting plot 65/2) of village Lakhanpur, pargana Mirzapur, district Sultanpur. The name of Ram Pal (the petitioner) was recorded as sirdar, in basic consolidation year, over khatas in dispute. In khata 47 some plots were coming in the name of the petitioner since before the date of vesting while plots 400/3 was recorded in column-IV (asami) since 1373 F. Mohan Das (respondent-3) filed an objection (registered as Case No. 2130) under Section 9-A of the Act, claiming co-tenancy of 1/2 share in the land in dispute. It has been stated by respondent-3 that he and the petitioner were brothers and formed joint Hindu family. The land in dispute was acquired from joint family fund. However, the name of the petitioner was recorded in representative capacity although it was joint family property, in which he had 1/2 share. The petitioner contested the case and stated that the petitioner was born from another mother and after death of his mother, his father remarried to another lady from which Mohan Das was born. After attaining the majority, the petitioner was separated from his father. Land in dispute were obtained by him after separation, through patta dated 11.06.1944 and 23.07.1949. It was his self acquired property, in which respondent-3 had no share. 4. The case was tried by Consolidation Officer. Respondent-3 filed extract of Kutumb Register, various money order coupan and pro-note dated 14.07.1953 and examined himself, Lalman, Ram Milan and Bhagwan Prasad as witnesses. The petitioner filed pattas dated 11.06.1944 and 23.07.1949 and examined himself as witness. The Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 10.03.1973, held that Mohan Das had stated that after selling the ornaments of his mother, land in dispute was acquired but he could give any evidence in this respect. The petitioner filed pattas dated 11.06.1944 and 23.07.1949 and examined himself as witness. The Consolidation Officer, after hearing the parties, by order dated 10.03.1973, held that Mohan Das had stated that after selling the ornaments of his mother, land in dispute was acquired but he could give any evidence in this respect. Plot 400/3 (area 0-15-0 bigha) was recorded in the name of Ram Pal as asami since 1373 F as such no question arose of this land being acquired by joint family. The witnesses of Mohan Das were below 30 years of age as such their testimony in respect of acquisition of the land in dispute were irrelevant. From Kutumb Register, it was proved that Mahan Das was born in 1935, while land in dispute was acquired during his minority. Thus Mahan Das failed to prove that the land in dispute was acquired by joint family fund. On these findings, he dismissed the objection of respondent-3. 5. Mohan Das (respondent-3) filed an appeal (registered as Appeal No. 417) from the aforesaid order. After hearing the parties, Assistant Settlement Officer Consolidation, by order dated 09.01.1974, held that admittedly Ram Pal and Mohan Das were step brothers. From the extract of Kutumb Register, it was proved that family of Ram Pal and Mohan Das were residing in the same house. Ram Pal admitted that from the life time of his father, he had been looking after entire ancestral jajmani. In case, he was separated from his father, then jajmani would have been separate of both the brothers. Apart from ancestral jajmani there was no other source of income of Ram Pal. From pro-note dated 14.07.1953, it was proved that Ram Pal had taken loan from Deokinandan, which was repaid by Mohan Das, in 1958. From various money order coupons, it was proved that Mohan Das used to send money order of Ram Pal up to 1964 as such family was joint till then. Ram Pal could not prove that Mohan Das had taken any loan from him. From the evidence on record it is proved that in the year 1944 and 1949, Mohan Das, who was younger was minor. Patta were obtained from nucleus of joint family, in the name of Ram Pal in representative capacity, who was karta of the family. Ram Pal could not prove that Mohan Das had taken any loan from him. From the evidence on record it is proved that in the year 1944 and 1949, Mohan Das, who was younger was minor. Patta were obtained from nucleus of joint family, in the name of Ram Pal in representative capacity, who was karta of the family. On these findings he allowed the appeal and set aside the order of Consolidation Officer dated 10.03.1973 and held Mohan Das as co-sharer of 1/2 share in disputed land. 6. The petitioner filed a revision (registered as Revision No. 3942) from the aforesaid order. The revision was heard by Deputy Director of Consolidation, who by order dated 21.04.1980 held that from the pro-note dated 14.07.1953, it was proved that Ram Pal took loan, which was repaid by Mohan Das on 14.07.1958. Thus it was proved that at the time of acquisition of the land in dispute, family was joint. Apart from ancestral jajmani, Ram Pal had no other source of income. As such it was proved that at the time of acquisition of the land in dispute, the family was joint and the disputed land was acquired from joint family fund in the name of Ram Pal in representative capacity. On these finding, he dismissed the revision. Hence this writ petition has been filed. 7. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that in basic consolidation record, the name of the petitioner alone was recorded over the land in dispute. Burden of proof was upon respondent-3 to prove that land in dispute was joint tenancy. The petitioner was born from first wife of Raj Bahadur. After death of the mother of the petitioner, Raj Bahadur remarried to the mother of respondent-3. At the time, when the first patta was obtained by the petitioner in 1944, his age was about 27 year. He was living separately from his father and acquired the land in dispute from his own income. Admittedly Raj Bahadur was alive even in 1949. There was no question of the petitioner to act as karta of the family during life time of his father. Statements of the petitioner in this respect has been misread and misinterpreted as the petitioner only mean to say that he was karta of his family i.e. his wife and children. Admittedly Raj Bahadur was alive even in 1949. There was no question of the petitioner to act as karta of the family during life time of his father. Statements of the petitioner in this respect has been misread and misinterpreted as the petitioner only mean to say that he was karta of his family i.e. his wife and children. Even if it is found that family was joint in the year 1944 and 1949 then also there is no restriction for a member of joint Hindu family to acquire the property separately. The land in dispute was obtained on nominal lease money from Zamindar. Admittedly, Mohan Das was used to reside in Bombay from his child-hood. His age in 1944 was about 9 years. He had no contribution either in acquisition or in cultivation of the land in dispute. There can be no presumption that tenancy holding belonged to joint family. In view of Section 33 of U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, no person can be admitted as co-tenant without written consent of the zamindar. Findings of Consolidation Officer has been illegally set aside by the appellate court. Orders of respondents-1 and 2 are illegal and liable to be set aside. He relied upon the judgment of this Court in Jagdamba Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1985 RD 281, in which it has been held that a member of joint Hindu family could acquired property for himself. Onus lies upon the person, who claim that the property belonged to joint family to prove that it was acquired from joint family fund. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Admittedly Ram Pal and Mohan Das were step brothers and their father Raj Bahadur was alive at the time of acquisition of the land in dispute in 1944 and 1949. 8. I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. Admittedly Ram Pal and Mohan Das were step brothers and their father Raj Bahadur was alive at the time of acquisition of the land in dispute in 1944 and 1949. The appellate court, relying upon Kutumb Register, from which it was proved that family of Ram Pal and Mohan Das were residing in the same house of which Ram Pal was recorded as head, admission of the petitioner that he had been looking after entire ancestral jajmani during life time of his father, pro-note dated 14.07.1953, from which it was proved that Ram Pal had taken loan from Deokinandan, which was repaid by Mohan Das, in 1958, various money order coupons, from which it was proved that Mohan Das used to send money order to Ram Pal upto 1964 and statement of witnesses found that the family of the petitioner and respondent-3 was joint till 1964. The case set up by the petitioner that he was separated by his father after his remarriage was disbelieved. The finding of fact recorded by appellate court was affirmed in revision and do not suffer from any illegality. 9. So far as joint nucleus for acquisition of the land in dispute, is concerned it was admitted to the petitioner that apart from ancestral jajmani, he had no other source of income. According to respondent-3, their father Raj Bahadur had suffered from paralytic attach and after recovery he used to do his customary barber work sitting at his house. Therefore, he was not so much active. The petitioner, being elder and major in the family, was acting as karta. Under Hindu law, a junior member can also act as karta of the family. From the evidence on record it is also proved that in the year 1944 and 1949, Mohan Das was minor as his birth was of the year 1935. In these facts it was held that Patta were obtained from nucleus of joint family, in the name of Ram Pal in representative capacity, who was karta of the family. The petitioner has failed to prove that he had separate nucleus to obtain the land in dispute. 10. In these facts it was held that Patta were obtained from nucleus of joint family, in the name of Ram Pal in representative capacity, who was karta of the family. The petitioner has failed to prove that he had separate nucleus to obtain the land in dispute. 10. The counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent-3 discharged his burden and proved that at the time of acquisition of the land in dispute the petitioner was member of joint Hindu family, which continued up to two years prior to start of consolidation operation in the village. Due to bad health of the father, the petitioner was acting as the karta of the family and apart from ancestral jajmani the joint family or the petitioner had no other source of income at the time of acquisition of the land in dispute. Supreme Court in Baikunth Nath Paramanik Vs. Sashi Bhushan Paramanik, AIR 1972 SC 2531 and Kochadi Naidu Vs. Ayyalu Naidu, AIR 1980 SC 2026 held that if the member of joint Hindu family had no separate source of income, then the property acquired during jointness of the family shall be presumed to be joint family property. Burden of proof was shifted upon the petitioner to prove that he had acquired the land in dispute from his own income. His case of separation was proved to be false. He could not prove his separate income. Even in Jagdamba Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, 1985 RD 281, relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner, it has been held that it can be proved that the land in dispute was acquired by karta of the family from joint family fund in representative capacity for the whole family. In this case, respondent-3 has proved that the land in dispute was acquired by the petitioner in representative capacity for the benefit of the family. The orders of respondents-1 and 2 do not suffer from any illegality. The arguments of the counsel for the respondent has force and liable to be accepted. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.