1. The dispute between the parties is in respect of the following properties :- (a) Ghair Mumkin Gharat located in Khasra No. 182 measuring 1 Biswa situated in village Sujala. (b) Land measuring 6 Bighas 8 Biswas comprised in Khasra Nos. 186 to 190 and 192 situate in village Behali. (c) Land measuring 13 Bighas comprised in Khasra Nos. 20, 21, 39 and 41 situated in village Sujala, Teh. Arki.

2. Admittedly, the properties in dispute were purchased in the individual name of respondent-defendant No. 1 Sudama Ram and are also recorded as such in the revenue record. The claim of the appellant-plaintiff is that the properties in dispute were purchased with the funds of Joint Hindu Family constituted of him, Sudama Ram and pro forma respondent-defendant No. 2 Chaudhary Ram, who are real brothers. Sudama Ram has disputed this claim and asserted that the properties in dispute are his individual properties purchased from his separate income.

3. Both the Courts below have though held that the properties in dispute were purchased at the time when all the three brothers, Parma Nand, Sudama Ram and Chaudhary Ram, were constituting a Joint Hindu Family and that there were lands of Joint Hindu Family which could provide nucleus for the purchase of the properties in dispute, yet, the claim of Parma Nand is rejected that the properties in dispute are Joint Hindu Family properties on the ground that he has failed to prove that the said nucleus was sufficient with which the properties in dispute could be purchased. Both the Courts below have not examined whether Sudama Ram had separate income sufficient to purchase the properties in dispute in his individual name on the ground that this would have been necessary had Parma Nand discharged the onus to prove that the nucleus was sufficient to purchase the properties in dispute. Now, in the present Regular Second Appeal, Parma Nand has challenged these findings.

4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. According to Sh. Chhabil Dass, learned counsel for Sudama Ram, the findings that Parma Nand has failed to prove that the nucleus was not sufficient to purchase the properties in dispute, are the findings of fact which cannot be interfered with in the exercise of the powers under S. 100, C.P.C. He has supported these findings of the Courts below which, according to him, are based on settled law that there is no presumption that Hindu family, merely because it is joint, possesses any joint property and the burden to prove that a particular property is joint family property is on the person who claims it so, by establishing that there existed joint family property which could provide nucleus to purchase it. Mr. Chhabil Dass has further submitted that since Parma Nand has failed to discharge this onus, his client Sudama Ram need not prove that he had any independent income sufficient to purchase the properties in dispute. On the other hand, Sh. Bhupender Gupta, learned counsel for Parma Nand, has urged that the concurrent findings of fact need to be interfered with as both the Courts below have not only misread the pleadings and the evidence on record but have also adopted a wrong approach to appreciate the facts and circumstances on record and to apply the settled law to them.

5. No doubt, it is well settled by now that there is no presumption that a Joint Hindu Family possesses joint family property. The burden of proving that a particular property is a joint family property is on the person who claims it as such. But ii the possession of a nucleus of a joint family property is either admitted or proved, any property acquired by a member of the Joint Hindu Family is presumed to be joint family property. Moreover, the nucleus of the joint family should be such as with its aid, the property in question could be acquired. It is only after the possession of an adequate nucleus is shown that the onus shifts on to the person who claims the property as self-ac