JUDGMENT Sudhir Agarwal, J Heard Sri Vikash Chandra Tiwari, Advocate, for petitioner; and Sri Anil Kumar Aditya and Radha Mohan Pandey, Advocate, for respondents. 2. The writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.11.1974 passed by Deputy Director of Consolidation, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “DDC”) whereby it has allowed the revision and held that Ram Satya and Sheo Prasad have half share in disputed property and Bharat Ram and Aadya Prasad have remaining half share. 3. In respect to disputed property claiming that it was a joint family property, an objection was filed by respondents. Family tree shown in para-2 of writ petition is as under: Prayag Dutt Bindeshari Prasad Jwala Prasad Bhagwati Prasad (dead) | Bharat Ram Parshottam (dead) | Ram Satya Adya Prasad Sheo Prasad 4. Consolidation Officer, Phoolpur, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as “CO”) after examining the evidence found that objectionists Sheo Prasad etc. were entitled to be recorded as co-owner of disputed property and decided objection by order dated 24.12.1973, operative part whereof reads as under: ^^oknhx.k f'koizlkn vkfn dh vkifRr ckor [kkrk la[;k 21 o 65 esa lg [kkrsnkj ntZ gksus ds ckjs esa [kkfjt dh tkrh gS ekStwnk bUnzk izfr oknh Hkjrjke vkfn ds ukeonLrwj ntZ j[kk tk; rFkk pdcUnh ds vUnj ukyk Hkwfe esa [kkrk dk foHkktu 1@2 Hkkx izR;sd esa Hkjrjke 1@2 Hkkx vk|kizlkn 1@2 ds vuqlkj fd;k x;kA xkVk l0 202@1] 15 fo0 ds ctk; 202@1@12 fo0 5 ?kwj ekSds vuqlkj ntZ gks rFkk i=koyh la0 670@ 3411 dk vkns'k i=koyh la0 685 ij Hkh ykxw gksxkA i=koyh ckn veynjken ds nkf[ky nQ~rj dh tk;A** “Objection of the plaintiffs, Shivprasad and others, to the registration of sah-khaatedar in khata nos. 21 and 65, is rejected. Current entries be maintained as before in the name of the defendants, Bharatram and others, and the khata pertaining to the nullah land under consolidation be partitioned as 1/2 part to each of them - 1/2 part to Adya Prasad and 1/2 part to Bharatram. Instead of gata no. 202/1, 15 Vi., the gata no. 202/1, 12 Vi. 5 dhoor be registered in situ, and order for file no. 670/3411 shall be applicable to file no. 685 as well. The file after execution be consigned to record room.” (English Translation by Court) 5. Instead of gata no. 202/1, 15 Vi., the gata no. 202/1, 12 Vi. 5 dhoor be registered in situ, and order for file no. 670/3411 shall be applicable to file no. 685 as well. The file after execution be consigned to record room.” (English Translation by Court) 5. Sheo Prasad and Ram Satya preferred appeal before Settlement Officer (Consolidation) (hereinafter referred to as “SOC”) which was registered as Appeal No. 1056 and it was dismissed by order dated 11.01.1974. Thereafter matter was taken in revision which has been allowed. 6. Revisional Court has found that there was nuclear family and in absence of any otherwise evidence, heirs were part of joint family and hence have co-share. Before this Court also, I repeatedly required learned counsel for petitioner to inform as to what evidence was laid to show that disputed property was not joint family property but was acquired independently by petitioners, but he could not refer to any evidence at all and submitted that it is an old matter and, therefore, no evidence is possible. In view thereof, the finding recorded by revisional authority is accordance with law and not liable to be interfered, in view of concept of joint family in Hindu Law. 7. In Hindu Law, concept of joint family has been given great respect and honour. In India and particularly among Hindus, the family bonds are not only very strong but they have given right to a society who believe in a joint family going to the extent of even the concept of village community. 8. In the concept of property, there have been three layers, i.e., Patriarchal Family, Joint Family and Village Community. The patriarchal family is headed by father and consists of his offsprings. Joint family may include within itself members, related to each other, though not having common ancestors and goes beyond family flowing from father himself. 9. It is said that unlike England, where the concept of ownership, as a rule, is single, independent and unrestricted, and it may be joint, but the presumption is to the contrary. It may be restricted but only in special instances and under special provisions. The situation in India is totally different. Here joint ownership is normally the rule and may be presumed to succeed until contrary is proved. It may be restricted but only in special instances and under special provisions. The situation in India is totally different. Here joint ownership is normally the rule and may be presumed to succeed until contrary is proved. If an individual holds property in severalty, in the next generation, it will relapse into a stand of joint-tenancy. A Hindu may start with nothing and make a self acquired fortune by dint of his own labour, capacity and merits and he is the absolute owner of estate but in a couple of generations his offspring would ramify in a joint family, like a banian tree which also stands as a single shoot. If the property is free from hands of its acquirer, it will become fettered in the hands of his heirs. 10. The “patriarchal family” may be defined as a group of natural or adoptive descendants, held together by subjection to the eldest living ascendant, father, grand-father, great-grandfather. Whatever be a formal prescription of law, the Head of such a group is always in practice, despotic; and he is the object of respect, if not always of affection, which is probably seated deeper than any positive institution. Manu says, “three persons, a wife, a son and a slave, are declared by law to have in general no wealth exclusively their own; the wealth which they may earn is regularly acquired for the man to whom they belong.” Narada says, “he is of age and independent, in case his parents be dead; during their lifetime he is dependent, even though he be grown old.” 11. The “joint family” is normally a transition form from “patriarchal family” at the death of common ancestors or Head of house. If the family chose to continue united, the eldest son would be the natural head. The former one is head of family by natural authority, the later other can only be so by a delegated authority. He is primus but inter pares. 12. An undivided Hindu family thus is ordinarily joint not only in estate but in food and worship. The presumption, therefore, is that members of a Hindu family are living in a state of union unless contrary is established. 13. He is primus but inter pares. 12. An undivided Hindu family thus is ordinarily joint not only in estate but in food and worship. The presumption, therefore, is that members of a Hindu family are living in a state of union unless contrary is established. 13. If the family was joint headed by a karta and land revenue was also being paid in respect to land acquired in the name of certain individual members of joint family from the joint family funds, onus lies upon persons who claim that property was acquired from individual resources and not from joint family fund otherwise the property acquired would constitute a joint family corpus and if not proved otherwise, presumption would lie in favour of joint family property. 14. The view expressed above has also been taken earlier by this Court in Harey Krishna Agrawal And Others Vs. Jairaj Krishna (Dead) and others, (2013) 7 ADJ 447 , Kunj Bihari & Others Vs. Ganga Sahai Pandey & others, (2013) 8 ADJ 97 and First Appeal No. 629 of 2005 (Amar Nath Kapoor And Others. Vs. Krishna Gopal Kapoor And Others) decided on 25.05.2016. 15. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by DDC so as to warrants interference. 16. The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed.