JUDGMENT : K.K. TRIVEDI, J. 1. This second appeal by the defendants under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is against the judgment and decree dated 16th July, 2004 passed in Civil Appeal No. 40-A/2004 by the District Judge, Rewa arising out of judgment and decree dated 23.2.2004 passed in Civil Suit No. 229-A/2000 by First Additional Civil Judge, Class-I, Rewa. 2. The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition of the family property alleging that the father of the plaintiffs and the defendant/appellant No. 1 was having three wives. Out of the aforesaid wedlock the parties to the suit were born. The father of the appellants and the defendant No. 1 were having certain properties at village Panti, Gaidi and Hardi. Some part of the property of village Hardi was given to son of the second wife of the father of plaintiffs and defendant No. 1, but rest of the property was never partitioned. Since two other brothers of the father of the plaintiffs and the defendant No. 1 were having no issues, they also gave their property to the said son of the second wife of the father of plaintiffs and defendant No. 1. Right from the very beginning the defendant No. 1 was acting as Karta of the family. The plaintiff No. 2 was in service and was away from the village, but out of his income from the service, he was giving savings to the appellant No. 1. However, the property said to be purchased from the joint family was illegally got mutated in the name of the wife of defendant No. 1 whereas the parties to the suit were having 1/3rd share each in the said property. Thus seeking to challenge such action and claiming partition of the joint Hindu family property the suit was filed. 3. The suit was contested by the appellant by filing a written statement alleging that the appellant No. 1 was not acting as Karta of the family. On the other hand, in the year 1980 the partition had taken place amongst the members of the family during the lifetime of the original holder of the land, the father of the appellant No. 1, and each member of the family was cultivating the land given in share. On the other hand, in the year 1980 the partition had taken place amongst the members of the family during the lifetime of the original holder of the land, the father of the appellant No. 1, and each member of the family was cultivating the land given in share. Since the daughters have not claimed any share, the members of the family were enjoying the fruits of the agriculture produce from their land given in share. Out of the said income certain more property was purchased by the defendant/appellant No. 1 in the name of the wife. In fact the share given to the son of the second wife of the father of the appellant and the property bequeathed to him were also purchased by the defendant No. 1 in the name of the wife, the defendant No. 2, out of the independent income. Though earlier the plaintiffs/respondents have agreed to pay the part of sale consideration, but they have not paid any amount towards the sale consideration and as such the respondents/plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in the property so purchased by the appellants. However, to some extent the jointness of the family and its property was admitted by the appellants/defendants in the written statement and the court statements. 4. The trial court after framing the issues reached to the conclusion that sufficient evidence was produced by the respondents/plaintiffs to draw a presumption that the family was joint and that suit property was belonging to the said joint Hindu family. Categorical finding was recorded that the defendants/appellants have failed to prove the fact of partition, devolving the shares of the joint family property in each family member separately, income from the share and purchase of the part of the suit property from the said income. The suit was thus decreed. 5. The appellants preferred an appeal before the lower appellate court, which, after appreciating the evidence once again, analyzing the findings recorded by the trial court, reached to the conclusion that the suit was rightly decreed by the trial court and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Hence, this second appeal. 6. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire burden was shifted on the defendants/appellants as if they were required to prove the fact of jointness of the family. Hence, this second appeal. 6. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the entire burden was shifted on the defendants/appellants as if they were required to prove the fact of jointness of the family. In fact this was the burden on the plaintiffs as no presumption in law is available unless it is demonstrated that the family was joint. Applying the principle it was wrongly held by the lower appellate court that since partition was not proved by the appellants, as claimed, the findings were rightly recorded regarding jointness of Hindu family property. It is contended that for proving the fact that the purchase made by the appellant No. 1 was out of the nucleus of the joint Hindu family, the burden was on the plaintiffs/respondents and since such a burden was not discharged effectively, virtually the suit was required to be dismissed. Instead of dismissing the suit, the trial court decreed the same and such a decree has been erroneously affirmed by the lower appellate court. According to learned counsel for the appellants such impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside. 7. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants are examined in view of the pleadings raised in the plaint and written statement. The defendants in very specific words contended that the property in suit was obtained by the ancestor, the father of the appellants and the plaintiffs by name Prabhunath @ Ram Prabhav Patel. The categorical statements made in paragraph 3 and 7 of the plaint were required to be answered properly by the defendants, specially when they were of the opinion that such a claim was incorrect. Though the genealogy was disputed, but in para-4 of the written statement the fact regarding jointness of the property and devolving of the suit property through the father Prabhunath @ Ram Prabhav Patel was not specifically denied. However, it was categorical contention raised that there was a partition amongst the family members sometime in the year 1980 when the original holder Prabhunath @ Ram Prabhav Patel was alive. In para-7, while giving the reply to the plaint allegations, certain subsequent purchase made by the appellants were described. However, it was categorical contention raised that there was a partition amongst the family members sometime in the year 1980 when the original holder Prabhunath @ Ram Prabhav Patel was alive. In para-7, while giving the reply to the plaint allegations, certain subsequent purchase made by the appellants were described. From such a pleading, it is clear that it was not disputed by the appellants at the initial stage that the family was joint and the said joint family was the owner of the land in dispute. The moment such statements were made in the written statement, automatically the burden of proving the partition of the joint Hindu family property was shifted on the appellants/defendants. They have not disputed that there was jointness in the family right from the very beginning. 8. The Apex Court and the High Courts on several occasions have categorically held that there would normally be a presumption of jointness of a family, if alleged, and is not denied by the other side. The moment denial is made regarding the jointness of the family, the burden is on the persons, who claim that the family was not joint. Likewise, it is held that in case the burden is discharged by the party claiming that the family was joint, it automatically shifted on the other side, who claims that there was no joint family. 9. In view of this the findings recorded by the courts below are seen. The trial Court has categorically held that when it was alleged by the defendants/appellants that there was a partition amongst the members of the joint family, it has to be inferred that there was a joint family earlier. In case the partition is not proved effectively, it has to be held that the joint family exists and there is no partition amongst the members of the family. While testing the statements of witnesses, the trial court has reached to the conclusion that it was a case of the appellants/defendants that there was a partition amongst the members of the joint family in the year 1980 and that was the burden on the appellants/defendants to prove such a partition. Though for the proof of partition it was said that there were witnesses who were present when partition had taken place, but barring for one, none was examined by the appellants/defendants. Though for the proof of partition it was said that there were witnesses who were present when partition had taken place, but barring for one, none was examined by the appellants/defendants. The witness, who was examined, has denied the knowledge about the partition amongst the family members. In fact he was only a witness cited by the defendants/appellants per chance, as he was attesting witness of all the sale deeds obtained by the defendants/appellants. After recording this fact, the trial court analyzed the other evidence and reached to the conclusion that there was no proof of partition amongst the family members and since by virtue of alleged partition property was said to be obtained, it was to be held that the said property was joint Hindu family property, which has never been put to partition amongst the family members, and the suit was decreed. The re-appreciation of the evidence of the trial court by the lower appellate court cannot be said to be perverse in any manner as no piece of evidence is made available to show that such evidence was not taken into consideration by the courts below. In view of this, the allegation that the property was not joint and, therefore, no decree could be granted to the respondents/plaintiffs, is incorrect. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants has heavily relied on certain decision of the Apex Court and the other High Courts and has mainly placed reliance in the case of Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango Vs. Narayan Devji Kango and Others, AIR 1954 SC 379 : (1955) 1 SCR 1 . It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that burden was wrongly shifted on appellants to prove the partition. In fact this Court failed to understand as to how such a law would support the appellants as the law laid down by the Apex Court is that primary burden is on the person, who claims that the property was joint, 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. As has been described hereinabove, this law supports the respondents and not the appellants as it was the case of the appellants that there was a partition amongst the family members. Same was the situation in the case of Bhagwant P. Sulakhe Vs. Digambar Gopal Sulakhe and Others, (1986) 1 SCC 366 . Rather it was categorically held by the Apex Court that the severance of status of joint family is alleged by someone, has to be proved by him and such a statement will not effect the nature of the joint family property which will remain to be joint until it is partition. This law also does not help the appellant in any manner. In the case of Mst. Rukhmabai Vs. Lala Laxminarayan and Others, AIR 1960 SC 335 the presumption of the joint Hindu family property was drawn where the partition was not effectively proved. This law will also not give any assistance to the appellant. Similar is the position, while the previous laws were considered by the Apex Court in the case of Achuthan Nair Vs. Chinnamu Amma and Others, AIR 1966 SC 411 : (1966) 1 SCR 454 . There also the Apex Court was dealing with the purchase made in the name of a junior member of the joint family and it was held that when it was found that severance of the joint family was not proved, therefore, the purchase said to be made was to be treated as out of the nucleus of the joint Hindu family property. In fact under a different discipline of the law such a finding was recorded, which will not be helpful to the appellants in any manner. The law laid down by the Orissa High Court in the case of Santanu Kumar Das and Others Vs. Bairagi Charan Das and Others, AIR 1995 Ori 300 also does not support the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. 11. The case of Surendra Kumar Vs. Phoolchand (dead) through and another, (1996) 2 SCC 491 relied by the learned counsel for the appellant deals with the Land Acquisition Act where a reference was required to be made. However, again it was held by the Apex Court that concurrent findings of the two courts about the joint family property are not required to be interfered with. This law is also of no assistance to the appellant. However, again it was held by the Apex Court that concurrent findings of the two courts about the joint family property are not required to be interfered with. This law is also of no assistance to the appellant. In the case of Ramchandra Pandurang Sonar (Deceased by L.R's.) and other Vs. Murlidhar Ramchandra Sonar and others (1990) 4 SCC 45 the question before the Apex Court was whether without framing of any substantial questions of law or where there were no substantial questions of law, was it possible for the High Court to set aside the judgment and decree reversing the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Since the findings of the present case are concurrent findings of the two courts, such a question does not arise. Lastly, learned counsel for the appellants has placed his reliance in the case of Appasaheb Peerappa Chandgade Vs. Devendra Peerappa Chandgade and Others, (2007) 1 SCC 521 and has contended that in terms of the law laid down by the Apex Court, the appellants would be entitled to the relief claimed in this appeal. Again it is not understood as to how the aforesaid case would be applicable in the case of the present appellants where facts and circumstances are totally different. Here in this case in hand the appellants have admitted the jointness of the property, but have set out a plea of previous partition for denying the relief of partition to the plaintiffs/respondents. Since the appellants have failed to prove the previous partition, their entire stand was wiped up. Equally the reliance placed in the case of C.V. Vythinatha Aiyar Vs. C.V. Varadaraja Aiyar and Others, AIR 1938 Mad 841 in the facts and circumstances of the present case is also misconceived. The burden was on the appellants to prove that there was a partition and that the property subsequently purchased was not purchased from the nucleus of the joint family property. Having failed to discharge such burden as is appreciated hereinabove and as has been concurrently found by the two courts below, no case to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree is made out. 12. There is no error of law committed by the two courts below in recording the findings on the appreciation of the evidence available on record. Having failed to discharge such burden as is appreciated hereinabove and as has been concurrently found by the two courts below, no case to interfere in the impugned judgment and decree is made out. 12. There is no error of law committed by the two courts below in recording the findings on the appreciation of the evidence available on record. No substantial questions of law arise for consideration in this appeal, which fails and is hereby dismissed. All previous orders of interim protection stand vacated.