The main legal point established is that the burden of proving joint family property lies with the party alleging it, and without evidence, no presumption can be made. Additionally, a registered document is presumed valid, and the challenging party bears the onus of proving its invalidity.

Mungeshwar Sahoo, J.

The defendants purchasers have filed both the First Appeals against the common Judgment and Decree dated 25.09.1967 passed by the learned Ist Addl. Subordinate Judge, Gaya in partition suit No.1 of 1966/47 of 1962 and 2 of 1966/54 of 1961.

2. For better appreciation of the fact, the short genealogy is required to be given. Beni Sao had five sons, namely, Gangoo, Jako, Jharo, Darbari and Amrit. Beni Sao died before cadastral survey operation and shortly thereafter Gango and Jako also died. Only three brothers were left, namely, Jharo, Darbari and Amrit. Two partition suits were filed being partition suit No.54 of 1961 which was filed by branch of Jharo against the branch of other two brothers whereas partition suit No.47 of 1962 was filed by the branch of Darbari Sao against the branch of other two brothers.

3. The case of the plaintiffs of partition suit No.54 of 1961 in short is that Beni Sao died in jointness and likewise Gango and Jako also died in jointness with the parties. Therefore, the branches of remaining three brothers were recorded jointly with regard to ancestral properties of village Marui. Nago Sao, son of Gango died leaving his widow who remarried. Mauzi Sao, son of Jako died issueless and his widow is defendant No.12 in the partition suit. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the ancestral property devolved on Jharo, Darbari and Amrit only and each of them have got ?rd share.

4. The further case is that in course of time, some lands under Khata No.139 in Mohalla Mirzapur, Jagjiwan, Nawada were acquired along with one Ved Narayan Sao and a Gola shops was constructed thereon. Subsequently, in the year 1924, in the month of March, they amicably partitioned with Ved Narayan Sao and the properties described in Schedule ‘1(a)’ of the pliant came in possession of the parties. The said properties were acquired out of joint family fund. The family had also a shop at Marui which was started out of joint family fund. One Kirana shop, one cloth shop were also started at Nawada out of joint family fund which are in joint possession of the parties. All the members of the family have been sharing the entire income of the family. For the last four years, the defendants No.1 to 8 started separate messing from defendant No.9 and 10. The plaintiff demanded for amicable partition which was refused therefore, this partition suit was filed. The plaintiffs have got 2/8 pies, defendant No.1 to 8 have 5/4 pies and defendant No.9 and 10 have got 5/4 pies whereas the remaining 12/8 pies belong to defendant No.11. In other words, each branch has got ?rd share in the suit property.

5. The case of the plaintiff in partition suit No.47 of 1962 in short is that Beni Sao had only 41 decimal of land and house thereon which was inherited by the parties. The usufruct of the land was insufficient and inadequate to maintain the large family of three branches, therefore, there was disruption in the joint family status. Darbari Sao and Amrit Sao came to Nawada in search of their livelihood and they jointly acquired land at Nawada with Ved Narayan Sao from their own joint income and earning. They gradually constructed two houses out of their own fund. They started three shops room out of their own earning. One is Kirana shop and the second is cloth shop and the third is Manihari shop and the other rooms were let out to the tenants by both the brothers on rent. Darbari Sao died in 1960 leaving behind the plaintiff as only heir. The plaintiff has got ?rd share in the ancestral property described in Schedule ‘2’ situated in Marui and has got half share in Schedule ‘3’ property of Nawada and the remaining half share is of Amrit Sao.

6. The further case is that Amrit Sao executed three sale deeds on 15.05.1961 purported to be karta to the sasurali relations, namely, Gangdhar Sao, Parshuram Sao and Gauri Shanker Sao (all of them are the appellants in both the Appeals) with respect to joint family property described in Schedule IV