JUDGMENT : C.R. Dash, J. Legal Heirs of deceased Defendant No.1, who lost in both the Courts below, are the Appellants in this Second Appeal. 2. The Plaintiffs’ case runs as follows : One Haradhan Behera is the common ancestor of the parties. He had two sons, Akshaya and Digambar. Akshaya died issueless sometime in 1937 and his widow Rukmini died three years thereafter. The property in question, especially ‘B’ and ‘C’ Schedule properties of the plaint, being ancestral properties, after death of Akshaya, his (Akshaya’s) share devolved on Digambar, who had two sons and two daughters. His elder son Jari @ Jai Behera @ Mangaraj is the plaintiff. His second issue (a son) Joti Behera @ Mangaraj is Defendant No.1, his third daughter Sukamani had died and his fourth issue Chandramani is Defendant No.2. It is the specific case of the Plaintiff that, both ‘B’ and ‘C’ Schedule properties of the plaint are the joint family property inherited by both Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 Joti, as Digambar died sometime prior to 1956, before coming into force of Hindu Succession Act. 3. It is the positive case of the plaintiff that, both he and Defendant No.1 have sold land jointly out of the Schedule ‘B’ properties to Brundaban Das on 26.06.1975 and Manoranjan Digal on 02.06.1960. However, the sale of property to Brundaban has since been set aside in O.L.R. proceeding. Both the brothers also sold jointly part of Schedule ‘C’ properties to one Dukhia Behera on 09.06.1960, and said Dukhia Behera is the father-in-law of Defendant No.1. Regarding the cause of action, it is asserted by the Plaintiff that the dispute arose on 02.06.1989 when Defendant No.1 closed the passage suddenly from the house of the Plaintiff to the road and fenced a major portion of the vacant land. When the request of the Plaintiff fell to the deaf ears of Defendant No.1, he filed the suit for partition of ‘B’ and ‘C’ Schedule properties. 4. Except Defendant No.1, all other Defendants have been set ex parte, as they did not contest the suit. 5. Defendant No.1 has taken the positive stand that, so far as Schedule ‘B’ property is concerned, he was liked by his elder father Akshaya Behera and his wife, and they have gifted the land orally to him as their foster son. Except Defendant No.1, all other Defendants have been set ex parte, as they did not contest the suit. 5. Defendant No.1 has taken the positive stand that, so far as Schedule ‘B’ property is concerned, he was liked by his elder father Akshaya Behera and his wife, and they have gifted the land orally to him as their foster son. So far as Schedule ‘C’ property is concerned, it is the positive case of the Defendant No.1 that he got the entire property by a Government Amalnama, and in the Sabik Settlement all the ‘C’ Schedule properties have been recorded in his name vide Ext. D. He has further taken the plea that, though ‘B’ Schedule property was his exclusive property, he had allowed Digambar and after him, the Plaintiff to stay in the property. In the alternative it is pleaded that, otherwise Defendant No.1 has perfected his title and possession to the ouster of the Plaintiff by way of adverse possession. 6. It is worthwhile to mention here that, at different stages in the Suit all the original parties died and their L.Rs. are on record now. 7. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, as many as seven Issues were framed by the learned Court below, out of which Issue Nos.4, 5 and 6 relate to the crux of the matter as to (1) whether the Plaintiff has got any right, title, interest and/or possession over the Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ property ? (2) whether the aforesaid properties are joint family properties ?, and (3) whether Defendant No.1 has perfected his title over Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties by way of adverse possession, in the alternative ? 8. The Plaintiff examined two witnesses including himself. P.W.1 is the Record Keeper of the Sub-Registrar Office, who was summoned to produce the originals of the Sale Deeds vide Exts.6 to 8, under which the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 jointly had sold the land of Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties to Brundaban Das, Manoranjan Digal and Dukhia Behera. P.W.2 is the Plaintiff himself. Besides oral evidence, the Plaintiff (P.W.2) has relied on nine documents including Exts. 6, 7 and 8. Other documents are R.O.R., Plot Index, etc. 9. Similarly, Defendant No.1 also examined two witnesses. He examined himself as D.W.1 and the husband of Defendant No.2 Chandramani as D.W.2. Besides oral evidence, he relied on four documents vide Exts. Besides oral evidence, the Plaintiff (P.W.2) has relied on nine documents including Exts. 6, 7 and 8. Other documents are R.O.R., Plot Index, etc. 9. Similarly, Defendant No.1 also examined two witnesses. He examined himself as D.W.1 and the husband of Defendant No.2 Chandramani as D.W.2. Besides oral evidence, he relied on four documents vide Exts. A to D, out of which, as indicated supra, Ext. D is the Certified Copy of the Khatian showing recording of the land of ‘C’ Schedule property in the name of Defendant No.1 in the Current Settlement, and Ext. C series are some Rent Receipts in respect of ‘B’ Schedule land. 10. On perusal of the evidence on record and after hearing learned counsels for the parties, the learned Court below returned the findings to the effect – (i) that, both the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 having sold land jointly vide Exts. 6, 7 & 8, it cannot be said that the ‘B’ and ‘C’ Schedule properties are exclusive properties of Defendant No.1; (ii) that, Defendant No.1 having not proved by any evidence that he got the Schedule ‘C’ property vide Government Amalnama and only two plots of ‘C’ Schedule property having shown to have been recorded in the name of Defendant No.1 vide Ext. D, and in respect of other plots, note of “forcible possession” being there, it cannot be said that the ‘C’ Schedule property is the exclusive property of Defendant No.1; and (iii) that, there being no evidence to show that Akshaya or his widow had gifted orally the Schedule ‘B’ property to Defendant No.1, it cannot be said that Schedule ‘B’ property is the exclusive property of Defendant No.1. Learned Court below, under Issue Nos. 4, 5 and 6, discussed exhaustively the evidence on record and came to the finding that Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ properties are joint family properties of both the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1, and Plaintiff has got half share in the said properties. The L.Rs. of deceased Defendant No.1 had preferred Appeal before the learned District Judge. Learned Addl. District Judge, Mayurbhanj, on being entrusted with the record, disposed of the Appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below. 11. The L.Rs. The L.Rs. of deceased Defendant No.1 had preferred Appeal before the learned District Judge. Learned Addl. District Judge, Mayurbhanj, on being entrusted with the record, disposed of the Appeal, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below. 11. The L.Rs. of Defendant No.1 thereafter preferred this Second Appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. and the Appeal was admitted on the ground of substantial question of law raised in Ground Nos. A and D. Ground Nos. A and D read as follows :- “(A) For that law being fairly settled by a series of judicial pronouncements that there is no legal bar for a member of a joint Hindu family to acquire any property out of his separate income or individual effort, in which event that item of property becomes his self-acquired property, and the onus lies on the person who claims such property as the joint family property to establish that it was acquired out of the joint family funds or thrown into the common stock, and in the instant case it being the positive case of the defendant No.1 that disputed lands mentioned in Schedule ‘C’ are his self-acquired properties, which gains support from the entries made in the Record of Right under Ext. D as well as from recording of such lands in the name of defendant No.1 in the current Settlement R.O.R. vide Ext.1 and that there are materials to show independent dealing in respect of such properties by the said defendant, the learned Courts below erred in law in putting undue emphasis on non-production of any document showing grant in favour of defendant No.1, particularly when the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden lying upon him.” “(D) For that, defendant No.1 in the alternative having pleaded acquisition of title by adverse possession / ouster in respect of the whole of the suit properties, and that with an issue framed in that regard he having adduced evidence, the learned Courts below committed serious errors of law in not only not examining the said aspect on analysis of materials available in record but rejecting the aforementioned stand by straightway holding that defendant No.1 failed to establish the same.” 12. The point of law that is raised in Ground No. A is fairly settled by now. The point of law that is raised in Ground No. A is fairly settled by now. Burden lies upon the person, who asserts that a particular property is joint family property, to establish the fact. In the present case, the aforesaid ground taken by the Appellant (Defendant No.1) has no relevance at all. Both the learned Courts below have returned the specific findings that both the brothers, i.e. the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 have sold properties at least on three occasions jointly at different times starting from the year 1960. Those documents have been proved vide Exts. 6 to 8 through P.W.1, who is none other than the Record Keeper of the Sub-Registrar’s Office. Defendant No.1 has not been able to prove the fact that he got the property exclusively through Government Amalnama, so far as Schedule ‘C’ property is concerned. He has also failed to prove the factum of oral gift by Akshaya and his wife, so far as ‘B’ Schedule property is concerned. Rather, there is evidence to show that in a part of ‘B’ Schedule property the Plaintiff is residing and both the brothers, i.e. Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 have sold the property jointly at least on two occasions. Learned Courts below have discussed other ancillary matters so far as the aforesaid evidences are concerned and have rightly dealt with the question of shifting of onus. In view of such fact, Ground No. A, raised as substantial question of law, has no relevance in the facts and circumstances of the case, and accordingly it has to fail. 13. So far as Ground No. D is concerned, it relates to perfection of right, title and interest by Defendant No.1 by way of adverse possession. In view of the discussion supra, and especially in view of Exts. 6, 7 and 8 and the failure on the part of Defendant No.1 to prove grant of Amalnama in his favour so far as ‘C’ Schedule property is concerned, and oral gift by Akshaya so far as Schedule ‘B’ property is concerned, this Ground must have to fail as irrelevant. 14. Accordingly, the Second Appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost.