JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 14.07.2005 in Title Suit No.16 of 2002 passed by the Sub-Judge No.-VI, Palamau at Daltonganj whereby and whereunder, the learned court below decreed the suit preliminary in part and ordered that a preliminary decree be prepared to the extent of 3/4th share in favour of the plaintiffs for the property mentioned in Item No. 2 of Schedule I of the plaint. 3. The case of the plaintiffs in brief is that the parties to the suit are governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law and are the descendants of the common ancestor Ram Dhanush Thakur. Ram Dhanush Thakur had four sons. The defendant no.1 Sarju Thakur is the eldest son of Ram Dhanush Thakur and the defendant no.2 Smt. Sheo Kumari is the wife of defendant no.1. The plaintiff no.1 Gopal Thakur is one of the son of the Ram Dhanush Thakur. The plaintiff nos.2 and 3 are the sons of one of sons of Ram Dhanush Thakur namely Late Ragho Thakur. The plaintiff nos.4, 5 and 6 are the three sons of Late Baiju Thakur- who was also one of the four sons of late Ram Dhanush Thakur. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that after the death of Ragho Thakur and Baiju Thakur in or about the year 1968 and 1989 respectively, the defendant no.1 became the Karta and Manager of the joint family. Ram Dhanush Thakur died in the year 1945. In the year 1958-59 there was an amicable partition by metes and bounds between the brother of Ram Dhanush Thakur namely Nagwant Thakur on the one hand and the four sons of the Ram Dhanush Thakur on the other hand. In the said partition, only four acres of land were allotted to the share of the four sons of Ram Dhanush Thakur. As the joint family was large hence, the income from the joint family property was not sufficient to meet the need of the family for even half a year. Hence, the joint family had no nucleus. In order to augment their income, the four brothers together opened a hair cutting saloon in the name and style of Gopal Hair Cutting Saloon in or about the year 1959 and the income of the said saloon remained with the defendant no.1. Hence, the joint family had no nucleus. In order to augment their income, the four brothers together opened a hair cutting saloon in the name and style of Gopal Hair Cutting Saloon in or about the year 1959 and the income of the said saloon remained with the defendant no.1. The plaintiff no.1 after attaining majority entered into Government service in the year 1962 in the Anti-Malaria Department of the State Government and the plaintiff no.1 contributed almost his entire saving to the joint family headed by the defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 acquired 3 Kathas of land which is equivalent 11 decimals of barren land bearing survey plot no.1636 of village Sudana P.S. Daltonganj, District-Palamau vide registered sale deed dated 06.09.1963 in his own name as Karta and Manager of the joint family and also constructed a joint residential house thereon from the joint family fund and started living there since the year 2001. The defendants who were altogether eight persons including his sons, their wives and children and plaintiff felt inconvenience in the joint residence described in Item No. 1 of Schedule I of the plaint and shifted to their native home of village Nawadiha. On or about 19.05.1964, the four sons of Ram Dhanush Thakur jointly acquired land having an area of four acres comprising survey plot no.28 of village Theka P.S. Chhattarpur, District Palamau vide registered sale deed dated 19.05.1964 and came in possession thereon. The plaintiff no.1 gave an authority letter dated 22.06.1969 in favour of defendants authorizing the defendant no.1 to withdraw his salary income deposited in his account as government servant and the defendant no.1 out of the said personal income of the plaintiff no.1 started a joint family business as Gopal Hair Cutting Saloon and also from other family properties further acquired joint family land vide registered sale deed dated 19.06.1969 measuring an area of 2 acres of Tanr land of survey plot no.28 of village Theka, P.S. Chhattarpur, District-Palamau in the name of his wife being the defendant no.2 and the said land are also the joint family land as described in Scheduled II of the plaint. The plaintiffs demanded partition of the joint family land and the house mentioned in Schedule I and II of the plaint on 12.10.1995 in presence of Sri N.K. Gupta, on 25.11.2001 in presence of Kashi Prasad Gupta and on 05.01.2002 in presence of Parmeshwar Prasad Gupta but the defendants were unwilling for partition hence, the plaintiff filed the suit with a prayer for preliminary decree for partition in respect of 3/4th share of the plaintiffs in the suit land mentioned in Schedule I and II of the plaint. 4. After notice, the defendants filed their joint written statement. Besides the usual defence, it was pleaded that the defendant no.1 has never acted as karta of the joint family consisting the families of the plaintiffs and the defendants. It is the specific case of the defendants that the defendant no.1 separated from his own brothers in the year 1957 and at that time, the plaintiff no.1 was aged about 15 years and living with his uncle Nagwant Thakur who was the karta of the family of the four sons of Ram Dhanush Thakur also. In the year 1959, a separation took place from Nagwant Thakur on one hand and three sons of the Ram Dhanush Thakur except that the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff no.1 started living with his eldest brother Ragho Thakur since 1959. It is the further case of the defendant that in 1959, after having separated from his uncle and brothers, the defendant no.1 started his own hair cutting saloon in a rented room taken from late Babu Rabi Prasad a lawyer and started living with his own family members in the rented house in Paneri Muhalla in Village Kund in the house of Jagdish Ram Kahar. It is the further case of the defendants that though the defendant no.1 was separated from his brothers yet as the plaintiff no.1 started getting education in the high school at Daltonganj and by that time, the defendant no.1 started residing at Daltonganj. At the request of his brothers, the defendant no.1 used to look after the plaintiff no.1. The plaintiff no.1 after completing education joined service temporarily in 1962 and all along remained in Government Service till his retiring from service in the year 2000. The defendant further pleaded that Ram Dhanush Thakur died in the year 1942 at the time of Durgapuja. The plaintiff no.1 after completing education joined service temporarily in 1962 and all along remained in Government Service till his retiring from service in the year 2000. The defendant further pleaded that Ram Dhanush Thakur died in the year 1942 at the time of Durgapuja. The defendants denied that the defendant no.1 ever jointly lived with his brothers and did the hair cutting work in the name and style of Gopal Hair Cutting Saloon. The defendants denied that the plaintiff no.1 contributed his entire saving from government service to the defendant no.1. The defendants further pleaded that the plaintiffs including the plaintiff no.1 himself acquired separately their own lands and three such plot numbers has been mentioned at the written statement, one acquired by Baiju Thakur and two acquired by plaintiff no.1-Gopal Thakur in or about the year 1993-94. The defendants also mentioned other lands, one purchased by Sheo Narayan Thakur. The elder son of Ram Dhanush Thakur in the year 1995 and the plaintiff no.1 again purchased a land in the name of his son Nagendra Prasad Sharma, the details of which has also been mentioned in the written statement. The defendants further pleaded that in the year 1969 the plaintiff no.1 had gone for two to three months to Patna only for this period, he authorized the defendant no.1 through letters only for this period to withdraw his salary deposited in his account as Government Servant with a direction to partly to make over the amount to his wife and partly to send the amount to the plaintiff no.1 who was at Patna, for his own expenses. The defendant tooks the specific plea that the plaintiffs have no right over the land described in the Schedule of the plaint except the item No.2 of Schedule I of the plaint which was purchased in the name of the four sons of late Ram Dhanush Thakur. The defendants denied that the plaintiff have ever demanded partition. 5. Learned court below on the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties framed the following seven issues:- (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Is there valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is defendant no.1 the karta and Manager of the parties to the suit? The defendants denied that the plaintiff have ever demanded partition. 5. Learned court below on the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties framed the following seven issues:- (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Is there valid cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is defendant no.1 the karta and Manager of the parties to the suit? (iv) Whether the suit land which is mentioned in item no.1 of schedule I and schedule II are joint property or self-acquired property of defendants (v) Was partition by metes and bound effected between Nagbant Thakur and Raghu Thakur and others? (vi) Is there unity of title and possession over schedule I and II of the suit land? (vii) Is the plaintiff entitled to the reliefs sought for? 6. In support of its case the plaintiffs altogether examined six witnesses. Besides proving the following documents which have been marked exhibit as under:- (i) Ext. 1 to 1/c - rent receipts (ii) Ext. 2-C.C. of service book of Gopal Thakur (iii) Ext. 3-C.C. of voter list (iv) Ext. 4-Sale deed dated 06.09.1963 executed by Basudeo Singh in favour of defendant no.1 Saryu Thakur (v) Ext. 5 – Order sheet of settlement case no.161/1965-66 7. The defendants on the other hand altogether examined 15 witnesses besides proving the following documents:- (i) Ext. A- Kirayanama executed by Shailbala Devi on 01.10.1980 for a shop which was taken on rent by Saryu Thakur for running his Saloon after leaving the house in the house of Ravi Babu Advocate (ii) Ext. B to B/5- Municipal rent receipts. (iii) Ext. C to C/8- Govt. rent receipts in the name of Saryu Thakur. (iv) Ext. D - Chaukidari rent receipts in the name of Saryu Thakur. (v) Ext. E- Letter of District Sub-Registrar to the Court. (vi) Ext. F- C.C. of gift deed executed by Saryu Thakur in favour of Sheokumari Devi (vii) Ext. F/1- Signature of Suchit Rai on the deed. (viii) Ext. G and G/1- Pass book of post office in the name of Saryu Thakur (ix) Ext. H- Banda Parcha (x) Ext. I to I/4 - C.C. of register II (xi) Ext. J- Sale deed dated 19.06.1969 executed by Chandrashekhar Prasad in favour of Sheo Kumari Devi (xii) Ext. J/1- Sale deed dated 06.09.1963 executed by Basudeo Singh in favour of Saryu Thakur (xiii) Ext. K - Money receipt of Basudeo Singh and others. H- Banda Parcha (x) Ext. I to I/4 - C.C. of register II (xi) Ext. J- Sale deed dated 19.06.1969 executed by Chandrashekhar Prasad in favour of Sheo Kumari Devi (xii) Ext. J/1- Sale deed dated 06.09.1963 executed by Basudeo Singh in favour of Saryu Thakur (xiii) Ext. K - Money receipt of Basudeo Singh and others. (xiv) Ext. K/1 - Money receipt executed by Chandrashekhar Prasad Singh (xv) Ext. L - C.C. of voter list of 1995 (xvi) Ext. M. to M/77-The house rent receipts granted by owner of the house for payment of monthly rental paid by Saryu Thakur for running his saloon. 8. Learned court below after taking into consideration the evidence both, oral and documentary in the record, came to the conclusion that the property mentioned in item No. 1 of Schedule I and Schedule II are the self-acquired property of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and there is no unity of title or possession among the plaintiffs and defendants in respect of the property mentioned in the item No. 1 of Schedule I and Schedule II and answered the issue Nos. iii, iv and vi against the plaintiffs. In respect of issue No. ii, the learned court below observed that the plaintiffs have not examined the three witnesses in whose presence, the plaintiffs demanded partition from the defendants and came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove the cause of action for the suit. So far as the issue No. i is concerned, basing upon the findings of issue Nos. ii, iii, iv and vi, the learned court below held that the suit is not maintainable. The learned court below observed that issue No. v was not pressed at the time of hearing. On the basis of findings of issue Nos. i, iii, iv and vi, the learned court below held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief or reliefs except the relief for partition in respect of the property mentioned in item No.2 of Schedule I of the plaint and decreed the suit in part as already mentioned above. 9. Mr. i, iii, iv and vi, the learned court below held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any relief or reliefs except the relief for partition in respect of the property mentioned in item No.2 of Schedule I of the plaint and decreed the suit in part as already mentioned above. 9. Mr. Niraj Kishore, learned counsel for the appellants on instruction submitted that the learned court below failed to properly appreciate the evidence in record and failed to consider the fact that the admission of the defendants in para-14 of the written statement that the four sons of Ram Dhanush Thakur purchased jointly contributing their share of consideration money establishes that both the plaintiffs and the defendants were joint at the time of purchase of the suit property. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that there is a presumption of jointness of a Hindu family and the defendants have failed to rebut the said presumption of the jointness of the family of the parties to the suit and failed to prove their partition from in the year 1957. In support of his contention learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Dinanath Yadav vs. Kusum Devi reported in 2000 (2) BLJR 910 wherein the Hon’ble Patna High Court in the facts and circumstances of that case held that there was no doubt in that case that the family had nucleus and some acquisition was made before partition as classified by the parties in that case and further held that the finding of the trial court in that case, that there was a partition in family and the plaintiffs were not entitled to the decree of partition was incorrect. Learned counsel for the appellants next relied upon the judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ayodhya Mahto and Ors. Vs. Ram Dutt Mahto 2004 (2) JLJR 191 wherein the Hon’ble coordinate Bench of this Court referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai and another vs. Desai Mallappa @ Mallesappa and another in AIR 1961 SC 1268 wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under:- “…….. Vs. Ram Dutt Mahto 2004 (2) JLJR 191 wherein the Hon’ble coordinate Bench of this Court referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai and another vs. Desai Mallappa @ Mallesappa and another in AIR 1961 SC 1268 wherein the Hon’ble Court held as under:- “…….. In our opinion there is no doubt that where a Manager claims that any immovable property has been acquired by him with his own separate funds and not with the help of the joint family funds of which he was in possession and charge, it is for him to prove by clear and satisfactory evidence his plea that the purchase money proceeded from his separate fund. The onus of proof must in such a case be place on the manager and not on his coparceners.” (Emphasis Supplied) The coordinate Bench of this Court further referred to Article 233 of the Principles of Hindu Law by Mulla (16th Edition) at page 260 which is as under :- “……… where it is established or admitted 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 presumption arises that it was joint property and the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmative that the property was acquired without aid of the joint family. But no such presumption would arise if the nucleus is such that with its help the property claimed to be joint could not have been acquired. In order to give rise to the presumption the nucleus must be such that with its help the property claimed to be joint could have been acquired.” It has also been stated that “…….. Where, however, the existence of the nucleus is shown and no other source of income is disclosed, the presumption may be made that the nucleus was sufficient to enable the property to be acquired. Where, however, the existence of the nucleus is shown and no other source of income is disclosed, the presumption may be made that the nucleus was sufficient to enable the property to be acquired. Such being the presumption, if any member of the family claims any portion of the property, as his separate property, the burden lies upon him in any such case to show that it was acquired by him in circumstances which would constitute it his separate property.” and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the impugned judgment and decree being against the weight of evidence in record is not sustainable in law and the same be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs be decreed. 10. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand defended the impugned judgment and decree and submitted that the facts of the case of which the citations were referred by the appellants are entirely different from the facts of this case because it is the admitted case of the plaintiffs as they themselves in the plaint stated that there was no nucleus of the alleged undivided Hindu family worth the name and there is no specific pleading as to who else than the defendant no.1 ever worked in the saloon in the name and style of Gopal Hair Cutting Saloon. In the absence of that and the fact that Ragho Thakur and Baiju Thakur were alive, who were elder brothers of the defendant no.1, when the defendant purchased the property mentioned in the Item No. 1 of Schedule I hence, there could not have been any occasion that the suit property was acquired by the defendant no.1 in capacity of karta and Manager of the Hindu undivided family of which the plaintiffs were coparceners. It is further submitted that similarly, the plaintiffs have pleaded that Baiju Thakur who was the elder brother of the defendant no.1 who was alive till 1989, so there is no way how the defendant no.1 could have been the karta of the family at the time of acquisition of the land described of Schedule II of the plaint. It is further submitted that similarly, the plaintiffs have pleaded that Baiju Thakur who was the elder brother of the defendant no.1 who was alive till 1989, so there is no way how the defendant no.1 could have been the karta of the family at the time of acquisition of the land described of Schedule II of the plaint. Hence, it is submitted that the learned court below has rightly appreciated the evidence in record and the plaintiffs having failed to prove his case, the learned Court below has rightly decreed the suit in part and thus, this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 11. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after careful perusal of the record, I find that the only point which arises for determination in this appeal is “Whether the learned court below has rightly appreciated the evidence in record regarding the expenses or otherwise of unity of title and possession of the parties to the suit in respect of the entire suit property?” 12. Out of the six witnesses examined by the plaintiffs, P.W.1-Shankar Bhuiyan has stated about the genealogy of the family of the parties. He has further stated that the defendant no.1 is the karta of the family. He also stated that after the death of Ram Dhanush Thakur, his four sons have got in partition only 4 acres of land hence the four sons of Ram Dhanush Thakur opened a saloon in the name and style of Gopal Hair Cutting Saloon and the four sons were together working there. He further stated that in 1962, the plaintiff no.1 joined the Government Servant and spent most of his earnings in the joint family and from such income, in the name of defendant no.1, 11 decimals of land was purchased with the consent and financial support of all the brothers. He has also stated about the acquisition of land jointly in the year 1964 of area 4 acres by the four brothers. He has also deposed that the schedule II land of the plaint was also purchased from joint contribution by the plaintiffs in the name of defendant no.2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not seen the schedule land and the purchase of land did not take place in his presence. He has also deposed that the schedule II land of the plaint was also purchased from joint contribution by the plaintiffs in the name of defendant no.2. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not seen the schedule land and the purchase of land did not take place in his presence. He does not know in whose presence the land was purchased in the name of the defendant no.1. He saw the Gopal Hair Cutting Saloon 20 years before his deposing in court. He was examined in court on 18.07.2003. 13. P.W.2-Lakhan Baitha has stated that the defendant no.1 is the brother and nephew and was a member of a joint family. The defendant no.1 with the help of his brothers has constructed one house at Sudna in which money has been invested by all the plaintiffs. In village Thekha, 6 acres of land has been acquired by both the parties in which also all the parties have shared, out of which one of the sale deed is in the name of the four brothers and the other is in the name of defendant no.2. One saloon in the name and style of Gopal Hair Cutting was run by all the plaintiffs and defendants together since 1959 to 2000. In his cross-examination, P.W.2 has stated that he has read up to class-VI. He cannot say the description of the suit house nor can he say its boundaries. He is no way connected with the income of the defendant no.2 nor is he any way connected with the suit property. 14. P.W.3-Ramnath Yadav has stated about the genealogy of the parties to the suit. He has stated that in para kha of his examination-in-chief that after the death of Ragho Thakur and Baiju Thakur, the defendant no.1 became the Karta and Manager of the property of his brother and nephew as well as of the saloon of the family and he continued to be the karta of the family till filing of the suit. The ancestral property of 4 acres is joint property of the parties to the suit. Gopal Hair Cutting Saloon was started in 1956 by all the brothers of defendant no.1 and all the brothers and nephews of the defendant no.1 were working in the said saloon, the income of which was kept with the defendant no.1. The ancestral property of 4 acres is joint property of the parties to the suit. Gopal Hair Cutting Saloon was started in 1956 by all the brothers of defendant no.1 and all the brothers and nephews of the defendant no.1 were working in the said saloon, the income of which was kept with the defendant no.1. The P.W.3 in para-anga has stated that the plaintiff no.1 was working in the said saloon for three years and the parties to the suit constructed a house at Sudna. He has also stated about the acquisition of 4 acres of land in 1964 and two acres of land in the name of defendant no.2 in the year 1969. P.W.3 did not turn up for cross-examination so his evidence was expunged. 15. P.W.4-Ganga Thakur is the plaintiff no.4. He has stated that they are the members of the joint Hindu family of which the defendant no.1 is the karta. The father of the plaintiff no.1 died in the year 1989. His father and his uncle opened a hair cutting saloon at Daltonganj. They worked hard to establish it as a good source of income. Sarju Thakur was keeping money and managing the shop. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has not seen the sale deed of the suit land. The house was constructed in 1984-85. He cannot say about the cost of construction of the house. The constructed house is about 8 ft. by 10 ft. but he cannot say whether house tax is paid or not. The rent has not been paid by the defendant no.1. There is three khatas of land in the name of defendant no.2 in Mouza Sudna but the receipt has not been issued in the name of defendant. 16. P.W.5-Gopal Thakur is the plaintiff no.1. He has stated that before joining his service, he was working in saloon under the ownership of defendant no.1 and he was depositing the income with the defendant no.1. All the brothers out of the said income, purchased land at Sudna which was written in the name of the defendant no.1 with the consent of all the brothers and on the said land house was constructed in which the plaintiff no.1 has also share. All have invested their earnings in the said house. He has also stated about the purchase of land in the year 1964. All have invested their earnings in the said house. He has also stated about the purchase of land in the year 1964. In the year 1995, the plaintiffs demanded partition but the defendant no.1 did not do it. The suit land is the joint property of all the parties. In his cross-examination, he has stated that his father has 2.2 acres of land under Khata no.21 at Nawadiha, over which his father has constructed a house. In initial phase of his service, he was posted at Bhandariya and at that time, all his four brothers were alive and his mother was also alive. He does not have any documentary proof of depositing money with Saryu nor can he produce any oral evidence regarding the same. P.W.5 was not present when the defendant purchased the Schedule I of Item No. 1 property of the plaint. Baiju Thakur and Ragho Thakur demanded share in the item 1 of Schedule I property but he has no proof of the same with him. He has no documentary evidence that he has invested money in the Item no.2 of Schedule I property of the suit. He does not have any information about the income of his brothers and only defendant no.1 knows about such facts. He has not seen the original sale deed of the Schedule II property but the suit land has been mutated. 17. P.W.6-Ashok Kumar Singh is a formal witness. He has proved the land revenue receipts which have been marked as Ext.1 to 1/c. 18. Out of the witnesses examined by the defendants, D.W.1-Yadunath Pathak has stated about the defendant no.2 cultivating the 2 acres of land purchased by her and that the house at Daltonganj has been constructed by the defendant no.1 and the same was gifted to the defendant no.2. 19. D.W.2-Saryu Thakur is the defendant no.1 himself. He has corroborated the averments made in the written statement and stated that out of his own income, he has purchased the item no. 1 and 2 of the schedule I property of the plaint. 20. D.W.3-Mahesh Prasad has stated about the defendant no.1 himself running the saloon and has further stated that the defendant no.2 was also working in the locality. 21. D.W.4-Chandradeo Mistri has stated that he is a classmate of the plaintiff no.1 in the primary school. 1 and 2 of the schedule I property of the plaint. 20. D.W.3-Mahesh Prasad has stated about the defendant no.1 himself running the saloon and has further stated that the defendant no.2 was also working in the locality. 21. D.W.4-Chandradeo Mistri has stated that he is a classmate of the plaintiff no.1 in the primary school. At the age of about 17 to 18 years the defendant no.1 was separated from the family of Nagwant Thakur @ Naga Thakur and after coming to Daltonganj, he used to work as barber in the footpath and later on he opened a saloon. He had two wives. The defendant no.2 is the second wife. Both his wives were earning by helping in religious rituals. 22. D.W.5-Rajendra Prasad Agrawal has stated about the defendant no.1 working as a barber and his wife was also earning good amount of money by helping in religious rituals. The defendant no.1 got separated from his uncle Nagwant @ Naga Thakur and his brothers and the D.W.5 never saw the brothers of the defendant no.1 in his saloon. The defendant no.1 and his workers were working in the saloon. The defendant no.1 purchased the land at Sudna out of his income and constructed the house slowly over the said land. 23. D.W.6-Muneshwar Singh, D.W.7-Shankar Das, D.W.8-Murari Sharan Lal, D.W.9-Parshuram Gupta, D.W.10-Krishnanand Pandey, D.W.11-Nawal Kishore Pathak, D.W.12-Ramesh Prasad, D.W.13-Suchit Rai, D.W.14-Sideshwar Prasad Singh and D.W.15-Madan Prasad are the formal witnesses and they have proved the documents only. 24. So far as the citation relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the facts of the case of Dinanath Yadav vs. Kusum Devi (supra) is entirely different from the facts of this case. Here the plaintiffs themselves admitted that the joint family property has no nucleus worth mentioning. Here the plaintiffs themselves admitted that the joint family property has no nucleus worth mentioning. Another inconsistency in the case of the plaintiffs is that though the plaintiffs in para-6 of the plaint has categorically pleaded that in an amicable partition between the Nagwant Thakur - the uncle of the defendant no.1on one hand and the defendant no.1 and his brothers on the other hand, the defendant no.1 and his brothers were allotted the share in respect of 4 acres of land and as per the case of the plaintiffs, the said four acres of land has never been partitioned whereas, it is the case of the defendant no.1 that there was a partition prior to that in the year 1957 but the plaintiff-appellants did not seek partition in respect of that four acres of ancestral land. Further though the plaintiffs made an assertion that the defendant no.1 became the karta of the joint family yet in the pleadings nowhere, the exact year of the defendant no.1 allegedly becoming karta and Manager of the said joint property has been mentioned. The fact remains that the Ragho Thakur and Baiju Thakur were elder brothers of the defendant no.1 and Baiju Thakur died only in the year 1989. So the inference that can be drawn from the pleadings of the plaintiffs is that if at all the defendant no.1, as per the case of the plaintiffs became karta and Manager of the joint family property, he could have become so only in the year 1989 that is after the death of Baiju Thakur. If that is the case, the suit property mentioned in Item No. 1 of Schedule I and II having been admittedly purchased in the year 1963 and 1969 respectively, the case of the plaintiffs that the said lands were purchased by the defendant no.1 in capacity of the karta and Manager of the joint family property is falsified. I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the admission in para-14 of the written statement that the property as mentioned in Item No. 2 of Schedule I of the plaint was jointly purchased by the four brothers implies that at the relevant point of time the purchasers were members of a joint family, has no force. Certainly, there is no presumption in law that if two or more persons purchase a property then they are the members of the joint family. So far as the contention of the appellants regarding the presumption of jointness of a property of Hindu family is concerned, none of the witnesses examined by the plaintiff-appellants had any occasion of being witness to the sale and purchase transaction of the item No. 1 of Schedule I and II property of the plaint which was admittedly acquired in the name of defendant no.1 and 2 respectively. So their testimony that the said properties were acquired on joint contribution of all the plaintiffs do no inspire confidence, particularly in the absence of any evidence as to what was the earnings of the concerned contributors and how much amount they have contributed. None of the witnesses of the plaintiffs have any occasion of seeing any of the alleged coparceners of the joint property working in the saloon of the defendant no.1. Further, the plaintiff no.1 himself was examined as P.W.5 but nowhere has he stated that the defendant no.1 was the karta and Manager of the family. The P.W.5 has also not stated that any coparceners of the joint family apart from him being ever worked in the saloon of the defendant no.1. He has also failed to say that what was the income of the other alleged coparceners of the property and he has categorically stated that he has no written proof or even any witness to the effect that any other alleged coparceners of the joint family contributed money for purchasing Item No. 1 of Schedule I and II property of the plaint. It is a settled principle of law that under the Hindu Law, there is presumption that a property standing in the name of a co-sharer is a joint family property. So it was incumbent upon the plaintiffs not only to prove that there had been no partition amongst the coparceners but he was also to prove the existence of a joint family fund sufficient to acquire the properties in the name of the defendant no.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of D.S. Lakshmaiah and another vs. L. Balasubramanyam and another reported in (2003) 10 SCC 310 held in paragraph 18 as under:- “18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of D.S. Lakshmaiah and another vs. L. Balasubramanyam and another reported in (2003) 10 SCC 310 held in paragraph 18 as under:- “18. The legal principle, therefore, is that there is no presumption of a property being joint family property only on account of existence of a joint Hindu family. The one who asserts has to prove that the property is a joint family property. If, however, the person so asserting proves that there was nucleus with which the joint family property could be acquired, there would be presumption of the property being joint and the onus would shift on the person who claims it to be self-acquired property to prove that he purchased the property with his own funds and not out of joint family nucleus that was available.” (Emphasis Supplied) The plaintiffs have failed to prove any document to show that the defendant no.1 has acted as karta and Manager of the joint family of which the plaintiffs and the defendants were members. So far as the contention of the plaintiff no.1 regarding contribution of his earning from the salary receipts from the government service is concerned, he could not produce any documents except the admitted receipt of salary for total amount of Rs.237/- received by the defendant no.1 on behalf of the plaintiff no.1, towards salary for the month of June-July 1969. Utilization of the said amount has been accounted for by the defendant no.1 in his pleadings and there is no contra evidence put forth by the plaintiff denying the utilization of the said amount as pleaded by the defendants. 25. Perusal of the Ext. K and K/1 indicates that the money for the said Item 1 of Schedule I was paid on 07.09.1963 and 19.06.1969 to the vendor. Perusal of Ext. G reveals that on 07.09.1963, Rs.700/- was withdrawn by the defendant no.1 from his savings bank account with the Post Office. This goes to show that the said property was purchased from the money of the defendant no.1. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff-appellants have failed to discharge the initial burden that there was nucleus in the form of any income whatsoever vested to the defendant no.1. This goes to show that the said property was purchased from the money of the defendant no.1. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff-appellants have failed to discharge the initial burden that there was nucleus in the form of any income whatsoever vested to the defendant no.1. In the absence of any cogent evidence regarding the income and contribution of the alleged coparceners of the joint property, this Court holds that the learned court below basing upon the evidence both, oral and documentary available in record has rightly came to a conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish the unity of title and possession in respect of Item No. 1 of Schedule I and II property of the plaint. The point for determination is answered accordingly. Thus this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this appeal and accordingly, this appeal is dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without any costs. 27. Let the Lower Court Record be sent back to the court below along with a copy of this judgment forthwith.