ORDER A.K.Rath, J - This is a plaintiff's appeal against confirming judgment in a suit for partition of the suit schedule property, for a declaration that the gift deed pertaining to schedule 'F' property is void and for a further declaration that the suit schedule property is the joint property of the plaintiff, defendant nos.1 and 3. 2. Dandapani Mohapatra was the common ancestor of the parties. He was originally a resident of Nayagarh State. He migrated to Gangpur State more than half a century back and settled in village Masnikani. He acquired some properties in that village. He had two sons, namely, Ananda and Gobinda. Dandapani died in the year 1943. His son Ananda died in the year 1946. Ram, Plaintiff and Purna-defendant no.1 are the sons of Ananda. Gobinda is defendant no.3. His wife, Nayani is defendant no.4. Subasini Tripathy, defendant no.2 is the daughter of defendant no.1. The case of the plaintiff is that schedule 'A' & 'E' properties are ancestral properties. The same had been jointly recorded in the names of Purna, Rama and Gobinda. Schedule 'B' property had been jointly recorded in the names of Purna and Nayani. Schedule 'C' property had been jointly recorded in the names of Purna and Ram. Schedule 'D' property had been recorded in the names of the plaintiff and defendant no.1. According to the plaintiff, schedule 'B', 'C' & 'D' properties had been acquired out of the joint family funds. It was further pleaded that defendant nos.3 and 4 had gifted away Ac.6.43 dec. out of schedule 'D' property in favour of defendant no.2 described in schedule 'F'. Since the gift was made out of the joint family property, the gift deed is invalid. With this factual scenario, the suit was instituted seeking the reliefs mentioned supra. 3. The defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4 filed a joint written statement. According to them, there was partition of the joint family property between the parties long since. The plaintiff and the defendants are in possession of their respective shares. The schedule 'B', 'C' and 'D' properties had been separately acquired out of their respective income. No financial assistance had been taken from any other source for the acquisition. There was no joint family nucleus. The parties were in separate mess and property. Those properties had never been treated as joint family properties. Defendant nos.3 and 4 were issueless. The schedule 'B', 'C' and 'D' properties had been separately acquired out of their respective income. No financial assistance had been taken from any other source for the acquisition. There was no joint family nucleus. The parties were in separate mess and property. Those properties had never been treated as joint family properties. Defendant nos.3 and 4 were issueless. They adopted defendant no.2 as their daughter, when she was only 21 days old. Out of love and affection, they gifted away the property as per schedule 'F' property in her favour by means of a registered gift deed dated 4.3.1980, Ext.B/1. The said property fell in the share of defendant no.3 during family partition. The gift deed cannot be declared as invalid. Defendant no.2 filed the written statement supporting the stands of defendant nos. 1, 3 and 4. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court framed ten issues. Parties led evidence, oral and documentary, to substantiate their cases. Learned trial court held that Schedule 'A' and 'C' properties are the joint family properties. There was no partition by metes and bounds. The gift deed is invalid. Defendant no.2 is the adopted daughter of defendant nos. 3 and 4. Held so, it partly decreed the suit. Felt aggrieved, the plaintiff filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Sundargarh, which was subsequently transferred to the court of the learned Ad hoc Additional District Judge, Sundargarh and renumbered as Title Appeal No.10/49 of 1995. Placing reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Gava Devi and another v. Gangadhar Mallik and others, (1978) AIR(Ori) 107, learned appellate court held that there was sufficient joint family nucleus to acquire those properties. Though the legal presumption of acquisition of those lands out of the joint family nucleus can be applied to defendant no.1, the same is not available in case of defendant no.4. The plaintiff failed to prove that defendant no.4 had no sufficient stridhan of her own to purchase the property or that the property was purchased in her name by her husband. The defendant no.4 had purchased the property out of her own separate income. Defendant no.1 was a teacher. He paid consideration of the properties purchased under Exts. A & F. The members of the joint family had acquired separate properties at different times. Those properties had been recorded in their names separately. The defendant no.4 had purchased the property out of her own separate income. Defendant no.1 was a teacher. He paid consideration of the properties purchased under Exts. A & F. The members of the joint family had acquired separate properties at different times. Those properties had been recorded in their names separately. Schedule 'B' property had been acquired separately by the plaintiff and defendant no.1. Those lands had been separately recorded in their joint names. Those are separate properties. The said propeirties had not been treated as joint family properties. Even if a person is joint, he may possess separate property. The persons, who have acquired separate properties, were not in the management of the family affairs. Held so, it dismissed the appeal. During pendency of the appeal, appellant and respondent no.1 died, whereafter their legal heirs have been substituted. 5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- "1. Whether the learned courts below were correct in attributing the character of the self acquisition to schedule 'B' and 'D' properties after coming to the conclusion that the joint family had sufficient nucleus to acquire those properties? 2. Whether the courts below were correct in accepting the plea of self acquisition in the absence of any material indicating that they had sufficient means to acquire those properties?" 6. Heard Mr.Ramakanta Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate along with Mr.Tapas Ranjan Mohanty, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr.Biplab Kumar Dash, learned Advocate along with Mr.Damodar Patra, learned Advocate for the respondents. 7. Mr.Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants submitted that learned appellate court had not at all decided the issue of adoption. Defendant nos.3 and 4 assert that defendant no.2 was adopted when she was a child. It is a Pre Act of adoption under the Old Hindu Law. A girl child cannot be adopted. The deed of adoption, Ext.C, is not the substitute of adoption. The courts below misread and misapplied the decision of this Court in the case of Gava Devi in respect of schedule 'B' property. The courts below have failed to decide cardinal issue as to whether the joint family nucleus available had been utilized or not. It is not necessary for the members, who have acquired independently to be in management to attract the presumption of utilization of the admittedly available joint family nucleus. The courts below have failed to decide cardinal issue as to whether the joint family nucleus available had been utilized or not. It is not necessary for the members, who have acquired independently to be in management to attract the presumption of utilization of the admittedly available joint family nucleus. Possessing property separately for convenience cannot raise a presumption that the members acquired individually, particularly in the absence of any case made out by any of the parties with regard to earlier completed partition. 8. Per contra, Mr.Dash, learned Advocate for the respondents submitted that schedule 'A' property was acquired by the common ancestor, Dandapani. Learned trial court, on a vivid analysis of the evidence on record and pleadings, held that the defendant no.1 was a teacher. The plaintiff had not paid any consideration. Schedule 'D' property was acquired by defendant no.1 by means of a registered sale deed, Ext.F after separation. The same had been recorded in his name in the hal R.O.R. Ext.F/1. No challenge was made to the said recording. Both the courts below concurrently held that schedule 'D' property is the selfacquired property of defendant no.1. He further contended that schedule 'B' property had been exclusively recorded in the name of defendant nos.1 and 4, Ext.3. Defendant no.2 is adopted daughter of defendant nos.3 and 4. The defendant nos.3 and 4 executed a registered deed of adoption in the year 1981, Ext.C. The plaintiff cannot challenge the same. Schedule 'B' property is the separate property of defendant nos.1 and 4. Schedule 'D' is the selfacquired property of defendant no.1. 9. In Baikuntha Nath Paramanik (dead) by his L.Rs. and heirs v. Sahsi Bhusan Pramanik (dead) by his L.Rs. and others, (1972) AIR(Supreme Court) 2531, the apex Court held that when a joint family is found to be in possession of nucleus sufficient to make the impugned acquisitions then a presumption arises that the acquisitions standing in the names of the persons who were in the management of the family properties are family acquisitions. 10. In Gava Dei, this Court held that it is well settled that when acquisition is made in the name of a coparcener of a joint family having sufficient nucleus, there is a presumption that the properties standing or acquired in the name of that male member are joint family properties. 10. In Gava Dei, this Court held that it is well settled that when acquisition is made in the name of a coparcener of a joint family having sufficient nucleus, there is a presumption that the properties standing or acquired in the name of that male member are joint family properties. That presumption will arise so long as it is not shown that the said properties are separate properties of that particular member. But there is no such presumption in case of acquisitions made in the names of female members of the joint family. 11. Reverting to the facts of this case and keeping in view the enunciation of law as stated, learned trial court came to hold that defendant no.2 is the adopted daughter of defendant nos. 3 and 4, but then learned lower appellate court did not delve into the said issue holding that "but validity or invalidity of this adoption does not affect the decision of this case, either way, because this issue is not at all relevant necessary for the just decision of the substantial questions in contest between the parties." The finding of the learned lower appellate court that the issue of validity of the gift deed is not relevant for decision of the case is not correct. The same has a bearing on the case. 12. Learned appellate court misread and misapplied the ratio in the case of Gava Dei . In the instant case, schedule 'B' property was not purchased by the only female member, but the same was purchased jointly by defendant nos. 1 & 4. 13. In view of foregoing discussions, the judgment of the learned appellate court is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned District Judge, Sundargarh to decide the appeal on merit without being fettered by any observations made in this appeal. In order to avoid further delay, the parties shall appear before the learned District Judge, Sundargarh on 25th June, 2018. Learned District Judge, Sundargarh shall conclude the hearing of the appeal by end of September, 2018.