JUDGMENT : Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. 1. It is case of the petitioner that Secretary (Defence), Government of India, New Delhi having power of attorney of the President of India has executed a sale deed dated 29th January 1952 in favour of Ganganagar Nirman Samiti through its Managing Director Sri Baldev Prasad Gupta. After sometime, its Managing Director was changed and Sri Ramnath Gupta, father of respondent no. 3 became its Managing Director. 2. It is further case of petitioner that Sri Ramnath Gupta, the then Managing Director executed a registered sale deed to all the members of Society and according to their share including to Sri Gaya Prasad, father of petitioner and member of said Samiti. Sri Ramnath Gupta, the then Managing Director has also executed registered sale deed on 3rd September 1956 in favour of Sri Gaya Prasad Gupta, father of petitioner in regard to Plots no. 1709 and 1866 and a share of Rs. 1750/- of Sri Gaya Prasad and share of Rs. 1750/- of Sri Ramnath Gupta was adjusted and remaining amount of Rs. 1283/- was paid in cash before the Registrar by the father of petitioner. 3. It is on record that according to claim of petitioner, Sri Ramnath Gupta, father of respondent no. 3 died on 7th July, 1972. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention that date of death was disputed by contesting respondents and according to them, date of death was different. 4. It is further case of petitioner that after the end of Hindu Undivided Firm, all properties were divided to its family members and a new proprietary ship firm was constituted in the year 1972, after death of Sri Gaya Prasad and all shares were equally distributed among 5 persons to the extent of 20% each. Ramnath Gupta having two sons, therefore, they got 10% share each. 5. It is further case of petitioner that due to certain error, despite they were in possession on basis of said sale deed dated 3rd September, 1956, their names were not recorded in revenue records, therefore, they have filed a mutation application before the Nayab Tehsildar bearing the Case No. 2/1982. Father of respondent-3 filed an objection in said case. The Nayab Tehsildar passed an order dated 25th August 1982 for mutation of name of petitioner in araji no. 1709/1 area 3.97 acres. 6. Father of respondent-3 filed an objection in said case. The Nayab Tehsildar passed an order dated 25th August 1982 for mutation of name of petitioner in araji no. 1709/1 area 3.97 acres. 6. According to petitioner, Sri Ramnath Gupta, father of respondent-3 had not challenged above referred order dated 25th August 1982 and as such it attained finality. Respondent-3 thereafter filed a case being No. 1/1988 under Section 59 of UP Tenancy Act, 1939 before the Court of Sub Divisional Officer, Mahoba on 17th May 1988 claiming share in land in dispute as a co tenant. A written submission was filed by the petitioner disputing the claim as well as question of maintainability was also raised in the written submission. 7. The Trial Court framed following four issues on 3rd April, 1989 :- 8. The Sub Divisional Officer, Mahoba vide order dated 25th March 1988, decreed the suit in respect of plot no. 1709/1 and rejected the claim in regard to plot no. 1866. Relevant part of order is mentioned below :- 9. The petitioner being aggrieved by above decree filed an Appeal under Section 265 (2) of Act of 1939, before the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham in respect of araji no. 1709/1. Respondent-3 has also filed an appeal in respect of plot no. 1866. Both appeals were decided together. The Additional Commissioner Chitrakoot Dham has allowed the appeal filed by petitioner and dismissed the appeal filed by respondent-3 and relevant part thereof is mentioned below :- 10. In above circumstances, respondent-3 filed a Second Appeal being No. 37/88-89 before the Board of Revenue in respect of plot no. 1709/1 and 1709/1/2 area 3.79 acres as well as in respect of plot no. 1866. Another appeal was also filed in respect of 1709/1/2 and 1866. Both appeals were decided by a common judgement dated 31st October 2013. The Board of Revenue framed following substantial questions of law :- 11. The Board of Revenue vide order dated 31st October 2013 allowed both appeals and order dated 28th April 1999 was set aside and order dated 27th March 1988 passed by trial Court was upheld with a modification that suit was decreed with respect to plot no. 1866 also. Relevant part is quoted below :- 12. The order dated 31st October 2013 is impugned in this writ petition. 13. 1866 also. Relevant part is quoted below :- 12. The order dated 31st October 2013 is impugned in this writ petition. 13. Sri Ram Kishor Gupta, learned advocate for petitioner, at the outset, submits that challenge to impugned order on a ground that delay in filing Second Appeal was not condoned is not pressed since in the impugned order, delay was condoned in the interest of justice. 14. Learned advocate further submits that HUF of petitioner and respondent was terminated in the year 1951 and thereafter they were living separately and were doing their respective businesses from their own source of income. Later on, a partnership was constituted on 1st August 1972 and respective shares of all persons were being part of the deed. The disputed property was purchased by the father of petitioner on 29th September 1956 by his own source of income. Share of respondents were paid and remaining amount was paid during registration. Property was not purchased for the benefit of firm or for the benefit of its partner. 15. Learned advocate further submits that trial Court has returned a perverse finding that the property in dispute was belonged to HUF. The finding returned was based on surmises and conjecture without any evidence on record. Trial court has not decided the suit in terms of Order 20 Rule 5 CPC by giving separate findings on each issue. Most relevant issue whether suit was barred under section 59 of Act of 1939 was not framed, though a specific ground was taken in the pleadings i.e. in written submission. Sri Gaya Prasad, father of petitioner died on 04.04.1972 whereas respondents have wrongly contended about another date of death . 16. Learned counsel refers contents of sale deed dated 29.09.1956 and refers its following relevant part :- 17. Per contra, Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsel for respondents submits that sale deed was executed by Sri Ramnath Gupta as Managing Director of Ganganagar Nirman Samiti in the name of Sri Gaya Prasad, one of partner of HUF of Kashi Prasad Gaya Prasad for funds of firm and for benefit of firm. 18. Learned counsel refers paragraph 7 of counter affidavit that it is not disputed that execution of sale deed by Late Ramnath Gupta in the name of Gaya Prasad Gupta and payment of consideration for sale deed by adjusting Rs. 1750/- of Late Ramnath share and Rs. 18. Learned counsel refers paragraph 7 of counter affidavit that it is not disputed that execution of sale deed by Late Ramnath Gupta in the name of Gaya Prasad Gupta and payment of consideration for sale deed by adjusting Rs. 1750/- of Late Ramnath share and Rs. 1750/- at Late Gaya Prasad share, however, remaining consideration of Rs. 1283/- was paid by Sri Gaya Prasad from his own money was incorrect and accordingly denied. 19. Learned counsel further refers that Sri Ramnath Gupta was Managing Director of Samiti, therefore, he could not execute a sale deed in his own name, therefore, sale deed was executed in name of one of brothers and partner of firm. A joint Hindu Family Firm was not abolished in 1951 nor property was divided amongst family members. 20. Learned counsel disputes that Sri Gaya Prasad alone remained in possession on land in dispute and it came to petitioner’s share. Disputed land was purchased by fund of the firm for benefit of firm and remained in possession of firm and a petrol pump is admittedly installed over plot no. 1866. 21. Learned counsel also refers part of sale deed and submits that rest of amount was definitely paid from funds of a Joint Hindu Family Firm. 22. Heard learned advocates for parties and perused the record. 23. From facts of present case, it is not disputed that initially land in dispute was a part of sale deed executed by Government of India on 29.01.1952 in favour of Ganganagar Nirman Samiti which was a property of HUF. The petitioner has set up a case that later on HUF was discontinued and he acquired the property in dispute from his own funds, as such, it was a self-acquired property. 24. In order to prove his claim, petitioner has to discharge the burden that HUF was terminated or despite existence of jointness in the family, property in dispute was acquired from his own funds. 25. Trial Court and Board of Revenue has held that petitioner has not able to prove that HUF was terminated or discontinued since no material except vague assertions were brought on record. 26. Supreme Court in Adiveppa and others vs. Bhimappa and another , (2017) 9 SCC 586 has held as follows :- “ 19. 25. Trial Court and Board of Revenue has held that petitioner has not able to prove that HUF was terminated or discontinued since no material except vague assertions were brought on record. 26. Supreme Court in Adiveppa and others vs. Bhimappa and another , (2017) 9 SCC 586 has held as follows :- “ 19. It is a settled principle of Hindu law that there lies a legal presumption that every Hindu family is joint in food, worship and estate and in the absence of any proof of division, such legal presumption continues to operate in the family. The burden, therefore, lies upon the member who after admitting the existence of jointness in the family properties asserts his claim that some properties out of entire lot of ancestral properties are his self-acquired property. (See Mulla, Hindu Law, 22nd Edn. Article 23 “Presumption as to coparcenary and self-acquired property”, pp. 346 and 347.) 20. In our considered opinion, the legal presumption of the suit properties comprising in Schedules B and C to be also the part and parcel of the ancestral one (Schedule D) could easily be drawn for want of any evidence of such properties being self-acquired properties of the plaintiffs. It was also for the reason that the plaintiffs themselves had based their case by admitting the existence of joint family nucleolus in respect of Schedule D properties and had sought partition by demanding 4/9th share. 21. In our considered opinion, it was, therefore, obligatory upon the plaintiffs to have proved that despite existence of jointness in the family, properties described in Schedules B and C were not part of ancestral properties but were their self-acquired properties. As held above, the plaintiffs failed to prove this material fact for want of any evidence.” 27. As referred above, trial Court has rejected the claim of petitioner with a specific finding that according to Family Sijara, disputed land was always considered as a property of HUF and was carried accordingly and a petrol pump was also in operation on it. 28. Aforesaid order was upset by Appellate Court in a very cursory manner without taking note of findings returned by the trial Court. The Appellate Court without any basis held that petitioner has able to prove his case only on basis that in sale deed it was not mentioned that it was purchased for purpose of a joint property. 28. Aforesaid order was upset by Appellate Court in a very cursory manner without taking note of findings returned by the trial Court. The Appellate Court without any basis held that petitioner has able to prove his case only on basis that in sale deed it was not mentioned that it was purchased for purpose of a joint property. However, aforesaid finding appears to be perverse on face of it since in recital of sale deed, the vendor Sri Ramnath Gupta has declared himself to be Managing Director of Ganganagar Nirman Samiti and he sold the land to Sri Gaya Prasad with a specific assertion that he cleared the share of vendor i.e. Sri Ramnath Gupta as well as vendee i.e. Sri Gaya Prasad and only on basis that shares were cleared, it does not mean that land was purchased from his own money or it would not be a part of HUF. Even there is no finding returned whether the remaining amount of Rs. 1283/- was paid by Sri Gaya Prasad from his own money or from HUF and as held in Adiveppa (supra), the presumption that “there lies a legal presumption that every Hindu family is joint in food, worship and estate and in the absence of any proof of division, such legal presumption continues to operate in the family”. Therefore, interpretation of recital appears to be perverse. 29. In aforesaid circumstances, judgment of Board of Revenue appears to be a reasoned order wherein not only recital of sale deed were considered but findings returned by trial Court were also considered that according to family sijara, land in dispute was treated as a joint property and such presumption remain unrebuttal, therefore, interference was rightly caused by Board of Revenue. 30. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioner has absolutely failed to rebut the presumption that property was always a joint family property and a sale was also for same purpose. Only on a ground that shares of vendor and vendee was cleared does not mean that property was self-acquired property of petitioner. Other factors such as family sijara as well as presumption of jointness remain unrebuttal as well as remaining amount of Rs. 1283/- was not proved to be paid by petitioner from his own money as well as nature of property always remain a joint property. 31. Other factors such as family sijara as well as presumption of jointness remain unrebuttal as well as remaining amount of Rs. 1283/- was not proved to be paid by petitioner from his own money as well as nature of property always remain a joint property. 31. In view of above, this Court is of considered opinion that petitioner has failed to make out a case in his favour, accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed.