Where it is established that the family possessed some joint property which from its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the property in question may have been accrued, the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property.

N.K.Kapoor, J.

1. This is defendants regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge accepting the appeal filed by the plaintiffs, thus decreeing their suit.

2. Briefly put, plaintiffs filed a Suit for declaration to the effect that land measuring 7 bighas and 15 biswas and a double storey house consisting of two rooms, one verandah and two chobaras, as shown in the site plan annexed with the plaint, is a joint Hindu Family Coparcenary property of the plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 and that the decree dated 19.8.1983 suffered by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is collusive, illegal and not binding upon the plaintiffs with a further relief that defendant No. 1 be restrained from dispossessing or interfering in their joint possession of the land in dispute.

3. Defendant Chhaja Singh, father of the plaintiffs and grand father of defendant No. 1 the appellant did not put in appearance despite service and so was proceeded ex-parte by the trial Court. Suit was contested by defendant No. 1 - the appellant. Claim set up by the plaintiffs was resisted stating that plaintiffs and defendant No. 2 do not constitute a joint Hindu Family nor the suit property is joint Hindu Family property/properties. It was further averred that it is wrong to suggest that plaintiffs are Coparcenars and that defendant No. 2 - Chhaja Singh is Karta of the Joint Hindu Family. Accordingly the decree suffered by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is perfectly valid and just. According to the answering defendant, infact this land measuring 7 bighas and 15 biswas was purchased by defendant No. 2 from one Sant Singh son of Ghisu about 15 years earlier by means of a registered sale deed and so same was his exclusive property. So, any decree suffered by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 cannot be assailed by the plaintiffs. Even otherwise the joint Hindu Family property was partitioned sometime in the year 1982 vide which half share in a truck bearing No. HYA-1590 fell to the share of defendant No. 1 but defendant No. 2 (Chhaja Singh) purchased the truck from defendant No. 1 and that the physical possession of the property in dispute was handed over to defendant No. 1 when this family settlement took place.

4. On the pleadings of the parties a number of issues were framed but primarily the contest revolved around the following issues:-

"2) Whether the suit property is coparcenary of the plaintiffs and the defendants as alleged by the plaintiffs in para 1 of the plaint? OPP.

6) Whether the decree dated 19.3.1983 suffered by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 being collusive, is not binding upon the plaintiffs? OPD."

5. The trial Court on the basis of evidence came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the suit property was coparcenary property of the plaintiffs and the defendants. Similarly, the court came to the conclusion that there is no basis to hold that decree date 19.8.1983 suffered by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is collusive and hence not binding upon the plaintiffs. Resultantly, issue No. 2 was decided against the plaintiffs and issue No. 6 was decided in favour of the defendants. The Court after examining the evidence led in respect of the remaining issues finally ordered dismissal of the suit.

6. Before the lower appellate Court the matter was once again examined on fact as well as law. Challenging the findings recorded by the trial Court, the counsel for the appellants argued that the trial Court has infact erred in law in not properly construing the evidence led which has consequently resulted in failure of justice. According to the counsel, there is ample evidence on record to suggest that the house in dispute is the ancestral house of the parties. Similarly, the truck, which is stated to have been fallen to the share of defendant No. 1, was infact pur- chased after selling the ancestral agricultural land. Otherwise too, excep