IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court was right in the proceeding under Section 30 of Land Acquisition Act,1894 upholding judgment of Court below that the property acquired was the HUF Property and not self acquired property of appellant and, therefore, the respondents have 1/3 share each in the compensation amount.

JUDGMENT

G.B. Pattanaik, J.-This appeal is directed agaisnt the Judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a proceeding under Section 30 of the Land Acquisition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). A property measuring 25.12 acres appertaining to survey nos. 70 and 71 in village Narwal in the District Indore had been purchased from one Mithulal under a registered Sale Deed in the year 1961 in the name of appellant Surendra Kumar by grand father Chhogalal as guardian. The said property was acquired for the industrial area Indore and the Land Acquisition Collector passed an award on 5.3.1966 under Section 11 of the Act and compensation of Rs.99,373/- was granted to the appellant. Subsequent to the passing of the award the respondents appeared before the Land Acquisition Collector and claimed that the property in question is joint family property and they are entitled to share in it. Dispute having arisen to the apportionment of the compensation, the Land Acquisition Collector referred the dispute for the decision to the Court under Section 30 of the Act. Before the Ld. Additional District Judge it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the land in question has been purchased in his name from out of his funds though his grand father Chhogalal acted as his guardian and therefore the same cannot be treated to be joint family property. It was also contended that Ramchandra one of the claimants had filed a suit for partition of the joint family property which was registered as Civil Suit No. 51/53 and in that suit the disputed property had not been included and present claim therefore is barred by the provisions of Order 11 Rule 2 C.P.C. The alternative contention also have been raised on behalf of the appellant to the fact that Phoolchand had relinquished his interest in the joint family property executing a release deed in favour of Chhogalal and consequently he also relinquished his share in the compensation amount. The respondents on the other hand contended that the property has been purchased by Chhogalal in the name of the appellant from out of the funds of the joint family, and as such they are entitled to 1/3 share in the compensation amount. It was also pleaded that the so called released deed is null and void and non-operative and is not binding. The Ld. Additional District Judge on thorough consideration of the matter before him came to the conclusion that Chhogalal grand father of appellant-Surendra Kumar was managing the affairs of the business of the Joint Hindu Family and the Joint Family had sufficient funds to purchase the land in question. He also found that the earlier partition suit having been filed in the year 1953 and the disputed property having been purchased only in the year 1961, the same could not have been included in the suit for partition and such non-inclusion is not fatal to the case of the respondents and Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. has no application. On the question as to whether the property is a joint family property or not, it was found that consideration money for purchasing the property had been paid by Chhogalal from out of the Joint Hindu Family funds and as such it was the joint family property. The plea of the appellant that the consideration money was in fact paid by appellant s maternal grand father was rejected as the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence on that score. With these findings it was directed that the appellant as well as the respondents would be entitle for 1/3 share each in the compensation amount. The aforesaid judgment of the Addl. District Judge in Miscellaneous Judicial Case No.9 of 1973 was assailed in appeal which was registered as First Appeal No. 59/1977. The High Court reappreciated the evidence on record and affirmed the findings of the Ld. Addl. District Judge. Bearing in mind the correct legal position with regard to the presumption of joint interest to the property in question the High Court scrutinised the evidence and came to the conclus